By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - spyro, crash and co.

Tagged games:

spemanig said:


I think it was the worst step. The thing with Galaxy is that they got it right on the their first attempt with 64. They were already damn near perfect in 64. SA1+2 were absolute messes in every catagory that I listed. It wasn't the right step, it was just the first step. Sonic kept needing to experiment because they got it so horribly wrong in their first go. I think so many people were just wowed by the simple fact that Sonic was finally in 3D and worked. Those games were an absolutely terrible foundation to build future games on. 64 just wasn't. It was a perfect game to lay the groundwork for future 3D Marios.

Sonic can be absolutely amazing in 3D, but if it finally happens, it'll only be the first time. It'll be Sonic's Mario 64. I think that the 3D, non-tunnel sections of Lost World is the absolute best foundation 3D Sonic has had so far. If they can keep what's good, remove what's bad, and improve what needs improving, they could finally have it. But they need to fix the homing issue and perfect air control. They need to take Sonic and work for weeks just on making it feel good to run and jump as him, without a homing attack.

Personally, I don't think SA 1 and 2 were as terrible as you say, but that's just me though. They were certainly games that just 'worked' at the time. I can't really comment if other Sonic games got closer to a better system, as I haven't played any of the Sonic games after SA2, except pieces of Lost Worlds. Hopefully they can eventually make that one good Sonic game.



 

              

Dance my pretties!

The Official Art Thread      -      The Official Manga Thread      -      The Official Starbound Thread

Around the Network
artur-fernand said:
jetforcejiminy said:

just played crash bandicoot (the 1996 original) for about an hour out of morbid curiosity. never again. it's amazing how much better jak and daxter is than the crash games. (and i don't even like jak and daxter.)

but that gets at my question: is it nostalgia? mechanically crash is unplayable today.

I couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread and maybe you've answered it, but that's it? You just played the first Crash?

Then it's no wonder you think like that, the first game is rather rough around the edges and hasn't aged that well.

Crash 2 and Crash 3 however are still great games. Crash 3 is actually my favorite platformer ever (no nostalgia attached)

 

And the fact you dislike Crash and Spyro but likes Klonoa, an incredibly average platformer, so much completely baffles me, but oh well.

i played all three, crash 1 was the one i recently played. how is klonoa an average platform? i'm pretty sure there's some critical consensus out there that it's one of the most unique platformers of its time, and one if if not the first 2.5d platformer.



Barkley said:
jetforcejiminy said:

crash team racing also rips off rare's kart racer, diddy kong racing (1997), which is also a better game than ctr.


CTR is a better game than DKR. See I can state my opinion as fact too!

Also those characters you said were "rip-offs" are kind of a stretch.

I'll give you Tawna but she was only in the first game very fleetingly anyway.

Cortex is nothing like Doctor Eggman in appearance or personality, there only connection is that they are both doctors and they are both the main villain.

Crunch is from the ps2 era anyway, but again other than him being a physically strong character and having a kind of serious personality there's very little similarity yet again.

I also don't see how this is a "carbon copy" of DKC in the slightest, there are a lot of levels in the original crash that are viewed from behind the character, not just levels on a 2d plane.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Psudeo 3d" either.

 

by pseudo 3d i mean that in that screenshot you've provided, you would lose very little gameplay (moving left and right in a very limited way) if the game were to be turned into a side-scroller a la donkey kong country. and the charge about dkc isn't that they're both 2d, but that the level design, gameplay, character design, etc., are all taken wholesale from dkc. compare the above, for example, to this:

other than the fact that in crash you're hemmed in in the middle by foliage on both sides, conceptually this is exactly the same gameplay. all you have is a psuedo 3d camera behind and a little above crash, so that the level seems to scroll horizontally up the screen as you move instead of from side to side as in dkc.

also, i should hope we're not in grade school and still saying quality is an entirely subjective consideration. surely it's not....



jetforcejiminy said:

by pseudo 3d i mean that in that screenshot you've provided, you would lose very little gameplay (moving left and right in a very limited way) if the game were to be turned into a side-scroller a la donkey kong country.


I strongly disagree even for the first Crash game which has the narrowest levels out of the three. The boar riding level for example if you remove the ability to move left and right all you have to do is time jumps, like the minecart levels in dkc. Even on normal levels it's different.

Maybe some people don't think it's a "better" experience but it's different and after decades of side scrolling platformers something different was sorely needed. The levels viewed from behind crash play differently to the side scrolling levels which are included aswell this gives the gameplay variety.



jetforcejiminy said:
Barkley said:


CTR is a better game than DKR. See I can state my opinion as fact too!

Also those characters you said were "rip-offs" are kind of a stretch.

I'll give you Tawna but she was only in the first game very fleetingly anyway.

Cortex is nothing like Doctor Eggman in appearance or personality, there only connection is that they are both doctors and they are both the main villain.

Crunch is from the ps2 era anyway, but again other than him being a physically strong character and having a kind of serious personality there's very little similarity yet again.

I also don't see how this is a "carbon copy" of DKC in the slightest, there are a lot of levels in the original crash that are viewed from behind the character, not just levels on a 2d plane.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Psudeo 3d" either.

 

by pseudo 3d i mean that in that screenshot you've provided, you would lose very little gameplay (moving left and right in a very limited way) if the game were to be turned into a side-scroller a la donkey kong country. and the charge about dkc isn't that they're both 2d, but that the level design, gameplay, character design, etc., are all taken wholesale from dkc. compare the above, for example, to this:

other than the fact that in crash you're hemmed in in the middle by foliage on both sides, conceptually this is exactly the same gameplay. all you have is a psuedo 3d camera behind and a little above crash, so that the level seems to scroll horizontally up the screen as you move instead of from side to side as in dkc.

also, i should hope we're not in grade school and still saying quality is an entirely subjective consideration. surely it's not....


Not entirely sure why you have such a negative stigma against crash but having played dkc as well you're really reaching for comparisons here. The dk you mention is 2 dimensional, backward forward up and down. In no way does that work on any of the crash games and I'm wondering if you've actually played them. The boulder dash levels, how could that possibly work in a side scrolling game? Or riding the jet board, can't work in side scrolling games. Or any of the vehicles, or riding the tiger, none of that works in a side scrolling game. You can state your opinion all you want but crash as a franchise had it's own merit, it's own ideas, it's own charm and to this day has a cult following. And CTR? Regarded by MANY to be the best kart racer of its time. Holds up better mechanically than its rivals in today's world too



Around the Network
jetforcejiminy said:

i played all three, crash 1 was the one i recently played. how is klonoa an average platform? i'm pretty sure there's some critical consensus out there that it's one of the most unique platformers of its time, and one if if not the first 2.5d platformer.

I myself found it average, saw no appeal whatsoever and the game didn't excite me in the slightest, which is a shame. There's also critical consensus that Crash and Spyro are among the best platformers of that era, and yet here we are =P



This is what you grew up with as a kid with playstation



jetforcejiminy said:

so i've noticed there's a fair bit of affection on the forums for these late-nineties abominations of character design and good taste. i thought i must be missing something. i've always thought they looked horrendous and weren't even slightly cute or endearing. and to add to that, i never found that the gameplay either in crash or in spyro was all that compelling. they seemed to me to be fairly simplistic early 3d platform games ripping off the rare donkey kong country games' equally horrendous character design.

there *were* some excellent 2d/3d platformers on psx, but no-one talks about them. jumping flash (and later jumping flash 2) pioneered the 3d platformer almost a year before mario 64 came out, and the original rayman was a tough as nails sidescroller with some limited charm. klonoa: door to phantomile was terrific as well, and sort of was the beginning of the 2.5d style you see nowadays in the retro donkey kong country games.

i guess my question is... what's attractive about crash and spryo? how do you redeem these relics of the 90s? is it just... you know... nostalgia speaking? because they do not stand up either as memorable characters or as especially good games to me today.

 

 

 

 

ugh.

 

You simply aren't a fan of these games or didn't grow up with PlayStation. They have some fun characters and were great games in those days, if you weren't a kid during that time you wouldnt necessarily get it. No reason for others to have to justify their love or "redeem" these games, especially since you are already convinced they aren't good.



Crash and Spyro were pretty much the childhood of almost every older gamer of the ones in between ages of 15-25ish RN. I loved both so much and back then, people didn't care about how they looked as they do now.

It was a time of gaming when people played games because they were fun. Not because of graphics or the games being "kiddie"



[Switch Friend code: 3909-3991-4970]

[Xbox Live: JissuWolfe]

[PSN: Jissu]

Reading through some of the OP comments makes it seem like they're just a Nintendo fan.