Crash Bandicoot

[Ivan]

I was bored and was looking for franchises/games to play that I've missed out on so far. I've never played the Crash Bandicoot nor the Spyro games so I decided to give the Crash series a go. They're pretty short games, each title is composed of 25 bite sized levels or so.
Crash 1 - the most frustrating and difficult of the bunch. The majority of my deaths were a result of failing to perfectly account for your footing. Many of the levels have you moving forward, and it's often vague just how far you need to jump or judge gaps. There was one level so bad that it milked my dozen extra lives or so.
Crash 2 - more enjoyable than the first, but this is where it becomes a lot more casual. Frustration with the level design was much, much lower, and the difficulty was lowered as well.
Crash 3 - this one introduces some vehicular levels that are pretty ass (one nautical, one aviary, one on motorbikes, all pale in comparison to the base levels). This one felt like it was the easiest of the trio but featured more level variety and better boss fights.

Crash 4 - I just started this reboot and it's an absolute blast. it doesn't feature the bullshit level design from the first game, while adding some sweet new mechanics that add some nice spice to the general game flow. It looks gorgeous, handles well, and sounds great. Toys for Bob really knocked it out of the park with this reboot. I'm just finished with the first "world" so I'm super excited to keep on playing and most likely finishing it tomorrow.

 

[Lemming42]

Crash 1 and Crash 4 are the best IMO. Some of the bonus levels in Crash 4 are pure genius.

There was one level so bad that it milked my dozen extra lives or so.

Slippery Climb, I'm guessing? It's an absolutely bullshit level. The N Sane version makes it slightly gentler, but on the PS1 original, you had to get all boxes and not die and the bonus level had to be completed in one try. Nightmare.

 

[Ash]

Vastly overrated, yet fundamentally solid. The thing is the games were behind the standards of the golden age of gaming (late 90s), and even behind the standards of the golden age of 2D platforming (late 80s-early 90s). It's a 3D game yet barely makes use of the third dimension, being highly railroaded, and just doesn't really do anything remarkably well. The core is solid or respectable enough, but there isn't anything beyond said core. The music is bland. There is no extended content. No story. Not much thematic diversity (constant jungle levels). The sequels added gimmicks instead of substance and expansion, though to be fair some of those gimmicks were pretty great like the monkey ball levels. It's not on par with its competition of the 90s.
If it is platformers you're after, I would sternly recommend PS1 counterparts like Spyro 1 and Tomb Raider 1/2, or the 2D classics like Mario Bros 3 which will likely remain the goat of 2D forever. Or even look to Metroidvanias of course (Symphony of the Night etc). Oh and Spelunky, Hollow Knight & Dying Light for rare modern gems. Though Ivan already got filtered by Dying Monocle unfortunately.

People swear by the 3D platformers on the N64 and PS2, but I don't really rate any of them highly of the somewhat sizable pool I tried. There's some good stuff on PC in the 90s too, but nothing really must-play comes to mind that is predominantly platformer. There's tons of great games with hybridization all over the place and years though (e.g some FPS games that contain lots of platforming, like Half-Life or Turok).

Crash 4? To me that was always The Wrath of Cortex on the PS2, as it was the fourth release and no spin-off. Might be my favorite in the series as well.

 

[Falksi]

Vastly overrated, yet fundamentally solid. The thing is the games were behind the standards of the golden age of gaming (late 90s), and even behind the standards of the golden age of 2D platforming (late 80s-early 90s). It's a 3D game yet barely makes use of the third dimension, being highly railroaded, and just doesn't really do anything remarkably well. The core is solid or respectable enough, but there isn't anything beyond said core. The music is bland. There is no extended content. No story. Not much thematic diversity (constant jungle levels). The sequels added gimmicks instead of substance and expansion, though to be fair some of those gimmicks were pretty great like the monkey ball levels. It's not on par with its competition of the 90s.
If it is platformers you're after, I would sternly recommend PS1 counterparts like Spyro 1 and Tomb Raider 1/2, or the 2D classics like Mario Bros 3 which will likely remain the goat of 2D forever. Or even look to Metroidvanias of course (Symphony of the Night etc). Oh and Spelunky, Hollow Knight & Dying Light for rare modern gems. Though Ivan already got filtered by Dying Monocle unfortunately.

People swear by the 3D platformers on the N64 and PS2, but I don't really rate any of them highly, of the somewhat sizable pool I tried. There's some good stuff on PC in the 90s too, but nothing really must-play comes to mind that is predominantly platformer. There's tons of great games with hybridization all over the place and years though (e.g some FPS games that contain lots of platforming, like Half-Life or Turok).

Crash 4? To me that was always The Wrath of Cortex on the PS2, as it was the fourth release and no spin-off. Might be my favorite in the series as well.

Yeah, personally I thought early 3D platforming was fucking wank all round, no two ways about it. I was bemused at how fucking retarded people were to be flushing away quality, peak 2D platforming such as Sonic, Mario, Kid Chameleon etc. for utter trash like Crash and Mario 64. Those early 3D platform games played shite.

 

[Ash]

Sure kinda...Except Tomb Raider, Spyro 1 and the endless amounts of 3D action games with a degree of platforming (almost all the late 90s FPS as some examples, and then some).
The problem with the N64 is they went collectathon and just lost the brilliance of their 2D mastery on the NES/SNES. PS1 on the other hand often didn't even try with pure 3D platformers, but when it did it actually did so pretty well, namely in the form of Spyro 1 and TR.

Also you a sanic fan now? I say this because you was a hater initially in the respective thread.

 

[Falksi]

Sure kinda...Except Tomb Raider, Spyro 1 and the endless amounts of 3D action games with a degree of platforming (almost all the late 90s FPS as some examples, and then some).

Also you a sanic fan now? I say this because you was a hater initially in the respective thread.

Tomb Raider I never played much of, so will take your word for it. Spyro was better, still not up to peak 2D standards.

Hated the original Sonic game and still do, it just didn't deliver on it's promise to be fast. Not a bad game in itself, can appreciate it after listening to other people's perspectives on it playing it with those in mind, have even found some enjoyment in it, but as a kid it was hyped up to be lightening fast and just wasn't and that just pissed me off. The latter ones were though, and I'd no issue with them. Sonic 3 & Knuckles + Sonic Mania gets more addictive with every play, fantastic games.

 

[DoWhocares]

Sure kinda...Except Tomb Raider, Spyro 1 and the endless amounts of 3D action games with a degree of platforming (almost all the late 90s FPS as some examples, and then some).

Also you a sanic fan now? I say this because you was a hater initially in the respective thread.

Of course Ash would like Spyro - a dime a dozen colectathon with some of the most prosperous voice acting known to man - and dump on Crash - an inventive platformer that realized the limitations of early 3d and leveraged them into a unique fun expereince.

It's like this boy is allergic to good taste.

 

[Ash]

Sure kinda...Except Tomb Raider, Spyro 1 and the endless amounts of 3D action games with a degree of platforming (almost all the late 90s FPS as some examples, and then some).

Also you a sanic fan now? I say this because you was a hater initially in the respective thread.

Tomb Raider I never played much of, so will take your word for it. Spyro was better, still not up to peak 2D standards.

Hated the original Sonic game and still do, it just didn't deliver on it's promise to be fast. Not a bad game in itself, can appreciate it after listening to other people's perspectives on it playing it with those in mind, have even found some enjoyment in it, but as a kid it was hyped up to be lightening fast and just wasn't. The latter ones were though, and I'd no issue with them.

Spyro was perhaps not up to peak 2D standards no, but that's a tall order as they had years to refine the craft. As an early 3D attempt they did a damn fine job.

Sanic 1 was fast. Almost every level outside of labyrinth had multiple springs and speedways. Which as I pointed out in that thread, were often the most boring parts (except spring yard zone).

Sure kinda...Except Tomb Raider, Spyro 1 and the endless amounts of 3D action games with a degree of platforming (almost all the late 90s FPS as some examples, and then some).

Also you a sanic fan now? I say this because you was a hater initially in the respective thread.

Of course Ash would like Spyro - a dime a dozen colectathon with some of the most prosperous voice acting known to man - and dump on Crash - an inventive platformer that realized the limitations of early 3d and leveraged them into a unique fun expereince.

It's like this boy is allergic to good taste.

I am the authority on taste, son.

Spyro 1 is a masterclass of 3D level design, and offers tons of style and charm to boot (e.g soundtrack).

Crash inventive how? Simple asf boss fights? Completely on rails level design with less to offer than even Mario Bros 1? Combat that involves running into people and timing your spin right and no more than that, while mario had powerups and throwing blocks/turtle shells around, super jumps off of people's heads, size change from taking damage that changes how you approach obstacles etc. It was mainly inventive in its gimmicks or level twists, like the running away from the boulder level...which is hardly much to write home about. That's it. It offers nothing of style or substance over a 2D platformer, which it is very closely related to since it barely makes use of the third dimension.

 

[Falksi]

Sure kinda...Except Tomb Raider, Spyro 1 and the endless amounts of 3D action games with a degree of platforming (almost all the late 90s FPS as some examples, and then some).

Also you a sanic fan now? I say this because you was a hater initially in the respective thread.

Tomb Raider I never played much of, so will take your word for it. Spyro was better, still not up to peak 2D standards.

Hated the original Sonic game and still do, it just didn't deliver on it's promise to be fast. Not a bad game in itself, can appreciate it after listening to other people's perspectives on it playing it with those in mind, have even found some enjoyment in it, but as a kid it was hyped up to be lightening fast and just wasn't. The latter ones were though, and I'd no issue with them.

Spyro was perhaps not up to peak 2D standards no, but that's a tall order as they had years to refine the craft. As an early 3D attempt they did a damn fine job.

Sanic 1 was fast. Almost every level outside of labyrinth had multiple springs and speedways.

As a kid I was ordering quality, not evolution. When I bought a game, I didn't buy it thinking "in 5-10 years time, these chaps will refine their craft!". I just wanted good games to play. Is refining their craft a valid excuse? Yes. Do those excuses change my experience and enjoyment of those games? No.

Sonic 1 wasn't fast enough for me. Sonic 2 & 3+K hit the pace I was expecting from the pre-release Sonic 1 hype.

 

[Ash]

It was quality though, just a different kind. Spyro's platforming itself isn't on par no (though still pretty solid), but the genius is in its vast 3D level design to be navigated & conquered. It still remains an exceptional example of how to do 3D level design. If you like navigation challenge & puzzling exploratory gameplay, there's a lot to appreciate. That's one of the big draws with Tomb Raider also. Which also remains a masterclass of 3D level design.

 

[DoWhocares]

Crash inventive how? Simple asf boss fights? Completely on rails level design with less to offer than even Mario Bros 1? It was mainly inventive in its gimmicks or level twists, like the running away from the boulder level...which is hardly much to write home about. That's it. It offers nothing of style or substance over a 2D platformer, which it is very closely related to since it barely makes use of the third dimension.

It knew that full-on 3d platforming was ass. It looked like ass with the early models, and felt like ass due to them not being able to figure out good 3d controls and cameras back then (exhibit a - mario 64, the king of ass) so Crash limited how much you could move on that axis. This resulted in more freedom of movement than in a 2d platformer but still enough to push the genre forward. You essentually got a 3d platformer that was as tight and felt as good to play as a 2d one. It then takes this idea of limited 3d further and offers different perspectives between the levels to both keep things fresh and showcase their tech - sidescrolling levels, levels where you run toward the camera, levels where you run away from it. And for a game of that era it all controls super tight.

That's not mentioning the optional challenges of getting all the boxes/crystals/secret levels that add a great amount of depth to every level. But you only interface with that if you want. There's no obligation or hand holding. You can beat the game without realizing there even were big secrets or "side-quests." Kind of like Super Mario World on steroids. And in that optional stuff the level designers also fully utilize varied perspectives to hide things in less than obvious places only possible with their unique and fixed camera angles. It's all one great cohesive package.

The later games (2-3) do go overboard with gimmick levels and bullshit mechanics (the fruit bazooka from 3), and one thing I'll concede is boss fights are actually terrible. But then 4 brigns it all back, and I agree with the OP it's actually the best entry in the series. Also, lol at him thinking he'll be done with it in a day after beating first world ez. Game gets proper hard in the later stages. Satisfyingly so.

And now it's time to despair because I wrote all that but it will fall on deaf ears as you don't have the mental capacity to recognize greatness when it's starting right at you.

 

[Ash]

I edited in more details regarding Crash's mediocrity and decline from 2D standards, such as its "combat":

"Combat that involves running into people and timing your spin right and no more than that, while mario had powerups and throwing blocks/turtle shells around, super jumps off of people's heads, size change from taking damage that changes how you approach obstacles etc."

You know nothing about full-on 3D platforming, because as mentioned, there are a multitude of great 3D platformers. Play TR1 and Spyro 1 to get started nigga. But as mentioned, they are to be approached with a different perspective or appreciation (puzzle elements and navigation challenge of vast 3D level design, with the platforming being a lesser but still good factor).

I will thoroughly agree with you on Mario 64 being ass though.

That's not mentioning the optional challenges of getting all the boxes/crystals/secret levels that add a great amount of depth to every level.

This "great depth" was not much compared to the 2D classics. I 100% Crash 3 and possibly Wrath of Cortex as a kid but would never do such a thing today.

 

[Odoryuk]

And now it's time to despair because I wrote all that but it will fall on deaf ears as you don't have the mental capacity to recognize greatness when it's starting right at you.

Aren't you the one shitting on Spyro 1??

 

[DoWhocares]

And now it's time to despair because I wrote all that but it will fall on deaf ears as you don't have the mental capacity to recognize greatness when it's starting right at you.

Aren't you the one shitting on Spyro 1??

 

[Ash]

Crash = decline 2.5D platformer with nothing remarkable about it. Fairly respectable core gameplay, but no reason to play it over a 2D classic. Name one if you can.
Spyro = masterclass early 3D game, but not so much in the platforming itself, but rather other elements. A decline in core platforming gameplay perhaps...but also to a degree not, because it opens up a whole new dimension to it and does so rather well by properly utilizing 3D. Also, it doesn't suffer from control and camera issues like Mario 64, and the art style is good despite being kiddie shit, again with Mario64 or Crash as the comparison.

Spyro 1 starts off as nothing too impressive, in world 1 of 6. But it increasingly gets more vast, tougher to navigate & platform in, more puzzling 3D levels. You have to play these levels and not ditch the game in two seconds to get the brilliance.

 

[Beans00]

I edited in more details regarding Crash's mediocrity and decline from 2D standards, such as its "combat".

You know nothing about full-on 3D platforming, because as mentioned, there are a multitude of great 3D platformers. Play TR1 and Spyro to get started nigga. But as mentioned, they are to be approached with a different perspective or appreciation (puzzle elements and navigation challenge of vast 3D level design, with the platforming being a lesser but still good factor).

I will thoroughly agree with you on Mario 64 being ass though.

That's not mentioning the optional challenges of getting all the boxes/crystals/secret levels that add a great amount of depth to every level.

This "great depth" was not much compared to the 2D classics. I 100% Crash 3 and possibly Wrath of Cortex as a kid but would never do such a thing today.

Dude these are games designed for little kids, are you actually developmentally delayed or something?

 

[Falksi]

It knew that full-on 3d platforming was ass. It looked like ass with the early models, and felt like ass due to them not being able to figure out good 3d controls and cameras back then (exhibit a - mario 64, the king of ass)

How Mario 64 is hailed as anything other than a complete piece of shit I'll never know.

These vids need a bit more love...

 

[Ash]

Eh, the second video shits on Doom 1993 and said its conventions have been abandoned (implying it's for good reason) and says it is not worth playing today. Delete that shit. The first vid is solid though.

Anyways, you say you will never understand? Bro, nintentards controlling the narrative of the internet, especially those that got their start with the somewhat declined N64 and never bothered to explore other gaming machines/PC. They're very numerous and vocal in mainstream domains. Same incredibly dumb shit that resulted in Chrono Trigger being labelled the best JRPG (or just RPG period), or the lie that Goldeneye was a "revolutionary" shooter and not horrid jank and massive drop in standards compared to most shooters of the time.

Dude these are games designed for little kids, are you actually developmentally delayed or something?

Go away you creepy little weirdo. These are games from my childhood. Neck yourself you worthless little cunt. Imagine spending your days obsessing over a random person on the internet because they managed to make you feel that inferior and insignificant. Seek help.

 

[Odoryuk]

It knew that full-on 3d platforming was ass. It looked like ass with the early models, and felt like ass due to them not being able to figure out good 3d controls and cameras back then (exhibit a - mario 64, the king of ass)

How Mario 64 is hailed as anything other than a complete piece of shit I'll never know.

These vids need a bit more love...

If you can't see the value doesn't meen it's not there.

 

[Ash]

True.

Then please detail that value with sound logical reasoning...if you can.

 

[Ivan]

Slippery Climb,

this cancer right here The High Road. No I didn't know you can cheese the level by walking on the rope. But you can see how frustrating the platforming can be here when moving forward and judging the depth of gaps.

 

[Tehdagah]

Crash has better platforming challenge than Spyro. Spyro is more of an exploration game.

 

[Ash]

Facts! But officially, it's a 3D platformer and there is still a lot of that in the game.

 

[:Flash:]

I never played Crash Bandicoot, but there's an absolutely fascinating making of on Youtube:

 

[Falksi]

It knew that full-on 3d platforming was ass. It looked like ass with the early models, and felt like ass due to them not being able to figure out good 3d controls and cameras back then (exhibit a - mario 64, the king of ass)

How Mario 64 is hailed as anything other than a complete piece of shit I'll never know.

These vids need a bit more love...

If you can't see the value doesn't meen it's not there.

We're not talking value, we're talking quality.

Mario 64 plays like shit, has wank stage design for the most part, and is little more than a janky camera battle. Just because some Nintendo-hive mind faggots who grew up with nothing better to play, and who were so starved of good games so much that they genuinely still think Goldeneye is as good as 90's FPS gaming gets, all worship the piece of shit that is Mario 64, doesn't mean it's any good.

Course it has value in terms of how it ruined gaming for several years, by influencing developers to go balls-deep with 3D too early. It was a "revolutionary" game in that respect.