Movies are, principally, stories. Games are, principally, games. If a game becomes a movie, the priority of the story shifts upward, and thus the bar for writing quality raises commensurately.
When a movie gets a game from its universe, the bar for writing quality shifts down, and the expectations are lowered, because the first focus of a game is the gameplay. When Goldeneye the game came out, people didn't hold against it the fact that its writing was not as good as the movie, because those weren't the expectations. Yet the gameplay was good enough that the game got a lot of praise despite the writing being worse than the movie. Because it was a game.
Even when a platformer series gets an RPG, the expectation for the writing increases. Not to movie level, but above platformer level. Because an RPG is more story-heavy. The priority of the writing shifts upward, and thus, the expectations for the writing too. But if an RPG series got a fighting game, the expectations for the story/writing would shift down.
It seems that you still aren't grasping what I'm saying about how standards and expectations differ based on what the actual product is.
If Mario somehow got a novel, you couldn't just say "well, is Mario even known for its writing?" to justify poor writing. Because it's a novel. It's the same principle for a movie, just not quite at that level. Writing carries more weight for narrative-oriented mediums.
But when it's a first time adaptation or reboot adaptation, fans who are already familiar with this are going to be expecting what they already know based on their experience with, no matter what's being adapted into. That's how adaptations work and it's the safest way to do it. It's not always about where it comes from. It's about what it is. People are not going to just ignore the original source material.
Let's look at your Goldeneye example again (RIP Tina Turner, by the way). Sure, it was a game first and foremost but they still did whatever they could to adapt the story because what people expect is the movie in the form of a game. It was called Goldeneye 007 and the 007 series has always been story-based, so what do you think they're expecting?
Let's also look at Metal Gear. It's a video game series but it's also known for its story. In fact, it's influenced by many Hollywood movies, so it's storyline is very noticeable. Heck, the story plays into the game. But here's the thing; it's not an RPG, not a movie, and is not a novel. Yet, it has some very interesting, yet deep stories. So what are people are going to expect when if it's adapted into a movie? A very interesting, yet deep story. Not just because it's a movie but because it's Metal Gear.
Or you could look at the The Last of Us. Also not an RPG, a movie or novel but it's a video game that's also known for dark, intense, and emotional story. So therefore, when a TV series of it was announced, people who were familiar with that series expected that because that's what The Last of Us is also known for.
Now as for Mario being adapted in a novel, I probably would still say that. If it the writing is really good, fine. I'll be really impressed. But if it's not, then how much do I hold that against a series that I've never known to have good writing? It'll just be the same thing because...that's just Mario.
Let me say it again: people will not carry with them the expectation for the same level of writing from a movie to a platforming video game. People know these are different things. People also know that adaptations change things. Most people are aware that Mario barely even talks in the games, so they're not going to expect depth out of him like he was some sort of Byronic hero.
The much bigger change is that when he opens his mouth, it's Chris ****ing Pratt. At that point giving him and the other characters a scene or two more to anchor themselves emotionally with the audience isn't going to cause dysphoria when someone next plays Even Newer Super Mario Bros 3D Deluxe. These aren't reasons for a movie to deliberately not dig past the surface on its characters. It's just going to make weak writing better.
You want to talk about wrong impressions of a series? Resident Evil, Assassin's Creed, Final Fantasy, Silent Hill, Rampage, etc. just made up new characters as the protagonists. Hell, look at the liberties any other video game movie made, the non-impact it made on the games' reception, and then tell me improving the characterization of the Mario characters is a bridge too far.
People know a movie is a movie and a game is a game. Look at the time the GP just shrugged off Pikachu turning into Deadpool.
And let me say this again; when it's a first time adaptation or reboot adaptation, fans who are already familiar with this are going to be expecting what they already know in a different medium, no matter what it is.
After hearing Charles Martinet for so long, listening to Chris Pratt (who sounds much different) is a new territory. Delving deeper into the characters in ways the video games didn't is a new territory. Fleshing out the story more than the games hardly ever did is a new territory.
These are three risky things for a first time adaptation and that's why like I said, adding some things is okay but if they add too much, that's a problem.
As for the movies you mentioned, those games are VERY different from Mario in many ways.
But like I said, I plan on watching it this weekend to see if the writing really is poor. But I'm also not expecting much out of the writing anyway.