I didn`t have a PS1 growing up, so I have no idea what were great about them. Their designs I think look better than what they have become. I think what killed them was that their games may have become mediocre and then forgotten. They weren`t taken care of as well as other have their their IPs. Crash is understandable because that was sort of out of Sony`s control.

Well, that's your first mistake. Crash 1 is by and large the worst entry in the original trilogy. The subsequent games improved on it in every way possible, especially control-wise. Crash is far from unplayable, even the first game. I played it a few years ago and had no problem with it. The original is hard, yeah, but so are most games from that era.

It's not nostalgia. I have nostalgia for them, but my type of nostalgia doesn't blind me from the quality of the game. They're no longer my favorite games anymore, but they're still very high quality.

This is off topic, but since I`ve never played them before, would you recommend any of the PS1 Crash or Spyro games? I`ve heard they were good, so some time I would like to give them a fair shot.

i should clarify difficulty is not a problem. i love difficult platformers. i loved tropical freeze.

crash bandicoot is a weird mish mash of sonic (cortex = dr. robotnik; the tween-geared marketing hype to make it look "edgy") and donkey kong country (dat ugly character design). the levels are linear as hell, which gives 3d a bad name, and this persists even after super mario 64 has come out and completely changed how people think about 3d. they're little crowded corridors... it's... claustrophobically bad and unimaginative, even in crash 2 and 3 (if i remember correctly). gameplay is repetitive, combat is unsatisfying, tho controls are fairly responsive. it's a me-too platformer with nothing but its coat of marketing paint to distinguish it in any way. (i feel this way about jak and daxter and ratchet and clank, too, which instead of ripping of donkey kong country ripped off banjo kazooie, but dislike them to lesser degrees.)

i couldn't in good conscience recommend any of them. try klonoa instead. or the jumping flash games i mentioned. they're all on psn and look great, say, on a vita. crash team racing, a mario kart rip-off, is the least bad crash game i've played.

Crash was an idol for my generation growing up. The massive install base of PS1 ensured its status as a mascot as well. Beyond that, Crash and Spyro hold up well to this day despite marking the outdated tech behind them. FYI the first crash can't hold a candle to the other two. Its recommended to start from #2 or #3 and play backward because the controls are easier to manipulate in the sequels. Plus you get more powers too. Give Crash 3: Warped a try and if you don't like that, then the games just aren't for you

I don't really want to get into it, so this will be my only post addressing this.

Bad physics, frequent glitches, bad camera, poor animations, bad controls, poor level design, padded "gameplay variety," terrible collision detection, bad voice acting, terrible story, and the game is flat out ugly, even for it's time.

I honestly don't get how Sonic 06 can be so unnanimously hated, yet these two games get off like they're some revolution. They aren't even mediocre. They are legitimately badly made games. Maybe it's because Sonic O6's glitches made the glitches in the prior seem far less frequent by comparison? I don't know, but there is so much wrong with those games.

And it's not a 3D vs. 2D issue. Sonic can be done well in 3D; he just hasn't yet. Too many people will say that "Spemanig, you're full of it. Generations and Colors were GREAT games," but they weren't. The difference is that they weren't flat out terrible games like the Adventure games. They were mediocre, which is frankly a massive improvement. They didn't have bad physics or frequent glitches. Their cameras weren't bad. Their animations were great, their controls were... Well, still bad, but much better than SA1+2. The level design was weak, but not flat out bad like the SA games. There was no gameplay variety padding. They didn't have bad collision detection, the VA was good, and the story served the gameplay. And the games are fucking beautiful, for their time, and for years to come.

If you ask me, the 3D sections in Lost World are the closest Sonic has ever come to getting it right in 3D because it finally got the controls and level design better in many regards, and even that game is extremely mediocre. But if you look at all of the games objectively, it absolutely blows my mind that anyone can say that these games have any redeaming qualities outside of their sound track. (which I still personally think is completely out of place in a Sonic game, but at least it's a good thing that's out of place)

I've absolutely never heard of that. Wow.

I can't talk about spyro because I never played it but Crash was part of my childhood, especially Crash Bash, best party game of its time IMO. Crash just had character and a personality that I could get behind. The games also played spot on and were challenging without being frustrating.

Sonic Adventure 1 and 2 just didn't age well. Much like RE CV, people look back now and think they're ass simply because we've advanced and they can't play a game with such archaic controls/cameras. But the truth is, FOR THEIR TIME, the Sonic Adventure game were amazing. The reviews at the time reflect it as well. The both reviewed great back in the day.