>>8247068>guessing you have something against the immortality
It has a lot of issues that come together to make the game suck, but yes, absolutely.
In WL1, Wario is a powerhouse. Mario is notable for his acrobatic prowess, but controlling Wario makes you feel strong. You can casually swat enemies around; pick them up and toss them like footballs, or ram into them like a roided up linebacker. And that's before you get any hat upgrades.
In Wario 2, to punish the player for getting hit they instead take your coins (annoying) and enemies slap you around like a little bitch (not fun). He dives about uncontrollably like he's trying to get someone sent off in soccer, even just for touching a little pirate dude. This makes Wario feel impotent. What's worse is that, as you said, WL2 is an open-ended puzzle/action platformer. To accomplish all that on the Game Boy, the fidelity of the graphics took a massive hit: gone are the big, expressive sprites of WL1, now the world is populated with scrunched up little pixel blobs. And everything is also the same shade of magenta, cyan, and yellow; so instead of running along mostly-linear courses that are full of character and interesting landmarks, you're exploring these repetitive identical-looking rooms full of ugly little pixel monsters while the retina-searing colour pallete slowly flattens your macula.
Getting tossed around by enemies sucks especially because,
A. WL2 focuses a lot on verticality, and getting knocked off a tall platform is the worst punishment imaginable after a bunch of tedious climbing. At that point just kill me. It'd be less humiliating.
B. All the transformations are debuffs. Debuffs that take away your control. Control you need to not go careering off platforms and have to do a bunch more tedious backtracking.
So yeah it was experimental. And like most experiments it failed (abysmally).
The only reason someone should play WL2 nowadays is to analyse how it failed so as to not repeat those mistakes.