Hot takes

[Ikagura]

I would consider crash to be more in the "2.5D" category

Crash Bandicoot is a glorified 2D platformer in 3D.

There I said it.

I do appreciate the game but I can hardly call it 3D (I mean it uses polygons but this is the equivalent of an isometric 3D game on a 16-bits but with a different perspective).

I don't know if it's a hot take but Mario 64 still is the most "open" 3D Mario game because Sunshine forces you to do episodes, Galaxy is much more linear as well as 3D World and even if Odyssey is more open it's still just you doing small tasks rather than doing major missions like in 64.

 

[Leon]

crash bandicoot came out 2 months after mario did in the usa. mario 64 came out first in the us and japan. crash did beat mario to the pal region first though. [fixed and added some spelling mistakes]

Lol fair enough, i still stand by what i said about the game being just barely playable in it't original form, sure it does get better once you get used to it, but i still consider it honestly one of the worst 3d mario games with sunshine and galaxy being better.

Guess this is a hot take i didn't realize i had lol.

I would consider crash to be more in the "2.5D" category

Fair enough, doesn't really change what my overall thoughts on the early 3d platformer is though, we didn't really get good platformers in 3d until full analog camera came around, though personally i still prefer 2d like mario 3 and sonic.
Maybe with exception to the jak games, but even those had some massive problems, like forced racing sections.

 

[Ikagura]

Lol fair enough, i still stand by what i said about the game being just barely playable in it't original form, sure it does get better once you get used to it, but i still consider it honestly one of the worst 3d mario games with sunshine and galaxy being better.

Guess this is a hot take i didn't realize i had lol.

Fair enough, doesn't really change what my overall thoughts on the early 3d platformer is though, we didn't really get good platformers in 3d until full analog camera came around, though personally i still prefer 2d like mario 3 and sonic.
Maybe with exception to the jak games, but even those had some massive problems, like forced racing sections.

Sunshine had the potential to be the best Mario game if it didn't get rushed.

Mario 64 is probably overrated because it was the first fully 360° 3D platformer that wasn't tank control like Bubsy 3D nor linear like Crash and because of how Gen Y (that grew up with the PSX/N64) was much more present on Youtube in the 2000's as they were mostly young adults in their College year without having to work 7-6 every days of the week nor having a family to take care of during the weekend (like Gen X who grew up with the Atari 2600/NES to the 16-bits era) and Gen Z were just too young to produce content as they were kids/early teenagers.

Also the novel aspect of many games like Symphony of the Night changing Castlevania as a whole, Metal Gear Solid changing how narration was done in games (sure, Metal Gear MSX and Solid Snake were there too but also too niche since consoles were more prominent than computers in the 80's), Final Fantsy VII being the first big scope, blockbuster JRPG (and being the first major FF game in Europe), Mario 64 redefining platforming and even Ocarina of Time setting elements still seen today in games.

Gaming during the 2D era was a fairly small hobby and the PlayStation shifted the paradigm quite a lot with the first two iterations.

Nowadays on Youtube you'll see more late early to mid 2000's games being presented as the kids of yesterday are also making reviews about the PS2 and Wii era.

 

[Leon]

Sunshine had the potential to be the best Mario game if it didn't get rushed.

Mario 64 is probably overrated because it was the first fully 360° 3D platformer that wasn't tank control like Bubsy 3D nor linear like Crash and because of how Gen Y (that grew up with the PSX/N64) was much more present on Youtube in the 2000's as they were mostly young adults in their College year without having to work 7-6 every days of the week nor having a family to take care of during the weekend (like Gen X who grew up with the Atari 2600/NES to the 16-bits era) and Gen Z were just too young to produce content as they were kids/early teenagers.

Also the novel aspect of many games like Symphony of the Night changing Castlevania as a whole, Metal Gear Solid changing how narration was done in games (sure, Metal Gear MSX and Solid Snake were there too but also too niche since consoles were more prominent than computers in the 80's), Final Fantsy VII being the first big scope, blockbuster JRPG (and being the first major FF game in Europe), Mario 64 redefining platforming and even Ocarina of Time setting elements still seen today in games.

Gaming during the 2D era was a fairly small hobby and the PlayStation shifted the paradigm quite a lot with the first two iterations.

Nowadays on Youtube you'll see more late early to mid 2000's games being presented as the kids of yesterday are also making reviews about the PS2 and Wii era.

I actually think the 3d aspect was only part of it, what i think really made gaming a success in the 32 bit era was the CD, specifically the ability to sell games at a cheaper price, phantasy star 4, which i got as a gift in 1994 was close to 100$ in 1994, that's around 210$ today, the fact you could sell games for sub-50$ changed who could buy games in that era and made the cost of entry much cheaper, ad to that the console's cost, especially for the playstation being relatively low in comparison to their competition it created a perfect storm that made the gaming industry we see today.

 

[qualgus]

I think the big zelda games (ocarina, windwaker, BOTW, etc) are insanely overrated and people are only particularly fond of the series because they grew up playing it.
I appreciate the good the games have done for helping innovate many systems of nonlinear sort of adventure games, but I've had to face that going back to these janky ass games is not fun.

 

[Tonberry]

My 3DS hot take is that I actually like the base New 3DS model more than the XL. I actually imported one from JP because as wonderful as the bigger screen is, I just like how crisp games look on the smaller screen. It's a shame cause I prefer the XL ergonomically (though I love both) but games looking crisper (especially base DS games) made it a no-brainer for me. Plus its just comfier in my pocket and I'm still a goober that carries handhelds in pockets when I go out with friends and don't wanna bring my backpack with.

Yeah I think both the base 3DS and the base N3DS at least look way better than the XL versions. I especially like the colored buttons on the base model!

 

[Ikagura]

I think the big zelda games (ocarina, windwaker, BOTW, etc) are insanely overrated and people are only particularly fond of the series because they grew up playing it.

I think this could be told about many big game around but I get what you mean.

I appreciate the good the games have done for helping innovate many systems of nonlinear sort of adventure games, but I've had to face that going back to these janky ass games is not fun.

Twilight Princess was basically an improvement over OoT in many ways. Same with TotK fixing issues in BotW.

 

[qualgus]

I think this could be told about many big game around but I get what you mean.

Twilight Princess was basically an improvement over OoT in many ways. Same with TotK fixing issues in BotW.

yeah, I generally have the same opinion about a lot of older series. Perhaps it's the contrarian in me, but there's few "legendary" retro games I can really say impacted me the same way they did other people.

 

[MasterEn]

Lol fair enough, i still stand by what i said about the game being just barely playable in it't original form, sure it does get better once you get used to it, but i still consider it honestly one of the worst 3d mario games with sunshine and galaxy being better.

Guess this is a hot take i didn't realize i had lol.

Fair enough, doesn't really change what my overall thoughts on the early 3d platformer is though, we didn't really get good platformers in 3d until full analog camera came around, though personally i still prefer 2d like mario 3 and sonic.
Maybe with exception to the jak games, but even those had some massive problems, like forced racing sections.

all early 3d platformers are gong to feel awkward and dated. itwas new tech at the time. this video i was watching over breakfast seems rather relevant to this.

 

[newageretrohippie]

I think the big zelda games (ocarina, windwaker, BOTW, etc) are insanely overrated and people are only particularly fond of the series because they grew up playing it.
I appreciate the good the games have done for helping innovate many systems of nonlinear sort of adventure games, but I've had to face that going back to these janky ass games is not fun.

I like zelda 2 way more than i like oot

 

[Tonberry]

I like zelda 2 way more than i like oot

Zelda 2 is genuinely underappreciated. I can see why people might not like it, but I love it personally!

 

[Ikagura]

Zelda 2 is genuinely underappreciated. I can see why people might not like it, but I love it personally!

Zelda II would be a nicer game if they didn't have that life system as if it was a Mario game.

 

[therealRonneberg]

Open World games are fine. A big reason people claim games like Breath of the Wild and FF7 Rebirth are "open world games done right" are because they had to wait until franchises they liked got the treatment before they realized it, because they (especially Rebirth) really don't do a lot of new things with the gameplay style.

Its true that people only say that BotW and FF7R open worlds are good because the games are attached to popular franchisees.
Open world games in general are absolute shit thou.
The open worlds in these games are essentially loading screen. You spent minutes staring at the screen being unable to do anything interesting besides holding forward until you hit the next content bubble in the open world that actually contains gameplay be that an enemy camp or a shrine or a tower.
Zelda 1 is actually the best open world game for that reason since nearly every screen in that game immediately forces you to engage in the primary gameplay of Zelda 1: Combat.

 

[Tonberry]

Its true that people only say that BotW and FF7R open worlds are good because the games are attached to popular franchisees.
Open world games in general are absolute shit thou.
The open worlds in these games are essentially loading screen. You spent minutes staring at the screen being unable to do anything interesting besides holding forward until you hit the next content bubble in the open world that actually contains gameplay be that an enemy camp or a shrine or a tower.
Zelda 1 is actually the best open world game for that reason since nearly every screen in that game immediately forces you to engage in the primary gameplay of Zelda 1: Combat.

I get your point and it’s totally fair. I just disagree though because I like the walking around/exploring parts
I know it doesn’t feel like exploring to many people, but to me it generally does. Just different tastes I suppose.

 

[Gorse]

Zelda II would be a nicer game if they didn't have that life system as if it was a Mario game.

A very easy fix for this in Zelda II would have been to simply let you continue from the beginning of every dungeon once you get a game over in it, like every other Zelda game does. (And like Zelda II's final dungeon does!) I'm OK with having lives for the overworld and within the dungeons themselves, but there's really no need at all to send you right back to the beginning when you're supposed to be doing something in a dungeon and screw up.

Also, if the game was going to have extra-life items in the first place, they really should have made them respawn. I love Zelda II, but these are very easy fixes, Nintendo!!!!!!!

 

[Ikagura]

A very easy fix for this in Zelda II would have been to simply let you continue from the beginning of every dungeon once you get a game over in it, like every other Zelda game does. (And like Zelda II's final dungeon does!) I'm OK with having lives for the overworld and within the dungeons themselves, but there's really no need at all to send you right back to the beginning when you're supposed to be doing something in a dungeon and screw up.

Also, if the game was going to have extra-life items in the first place, they really should have made them respawn. I love Zelda II, but these are very easy fixes, Nintendo!!!!!!!

I think that adding lives to action/adventure game is as relevant as adding a score in a RPG.

Gauntlet had one but it was a pre-Zelda/pre-Dragon Quest Western Hack n Slash.

So yeah, dungeons should've been checkpoints and having the 1-ups being permanently removed of the save file when you obtain them is just bad design.

The strat in Zelda II is to never get any until the end of the game but it just sucks that you have to redo the full road (thankfully you can somehow manage to have shortcuts with the hammer).

 

[Gorse]

I think that adding lives to action/adventure game is as relevant as adding a score in a RPG.

Yeah, I pretty much agree 100%. They must have just added them in Zelda II because the game was in a side-scrolling perspective, and at the time, that meant lives. I'm surprised Link didn't pick up rupees like Mario does with coins!

 

[MasterEn]

Its true that people only say that BotW and FF7R open worlds are good because the games are attached to popular franchisees.
Open world games in general are absolute shit thou.
The open worlds in these games are essentially loading screen. You spent minutes staring at the screen being unable to do anything interesting besides holding forward until you hit the next content bubble in the open world that actually contains gameplay be that an enemy camp or a shrine or a tower.
Zelda 1 is actually the best open world game for that reason since nearly every screen in that game immediately forces you to engage in the primary gameplay of Zelda 1: Combat.

botw is seemingly a throwback to the first zelda game, but introduces an somewhat linear story into it; which more or less defeats the spirit that the game was going for. the first game came with a map and instruction booklet. then you are instantly dropped in and free to do what you want. for the first three dungeons. you can explore to your hearts content, but you do have to do the dungeons, and they have an order to them. nothing wrong with that.
but, for reasons that i can not fathom, they decided that the difficulty had to be mostly even for the whole game. the official reason is "any dungeon could be someone's first" or something stupid like that. that idea worls for comics, movies and tv shows.
you have training shrines. THOSE ARE THE FIRST FUCKING SHRINES THAT PEOPLE DO!!!!!!!!!! i've started 3 playthroughs. i have one where i'm 100% it. no matter how you play, you have to do them, then you can go fight calamity ganon in a mexican standoff. the shrines should have loaded up in a specific lineup. easy to difficult, and just be tagged to a shrine on the overworld instead of a locked position. it would make for unique playthroughs.
i would argue that the fatal flaw of open world games is the story braking that occurs. the story of a game unfolds as the player progresses. in my first playthrough, zelda had to watch my link run around for 85+ hours collecting spicy peppers and meat, collection weapons and clothes and getting decked out with some good color drip while slaughtering monsters and grinding up their organs for seasoning.
pretty sure zelda could have solved the main conflict of the game before i finally got to the 3rd divine beast.
and then carry that over to the second game but add onto that adding riju and purah to the list of zelda babes that i would add to a zelda themed harem.
ff7 remake is just a worse game in every aspect compared to the original.

 

[newageretrohippie]

Crash Bandicoot is a glorified 2D platformer in 3D.

There I said it.

I do appreciate the game but I can hardly call it 3D (I mean it uses polygons but this is the equivalent of an isometric 3D game on a 16-bits but with a different perspective).

Yeah its true although i dont think that is inherently bad. in fact, i think its a subgenre which wasnt developed enough.

i think the introduction of the dual shock controller made it easier to just give full control of the camera to the player than to work out the logistics of having a computer controlled camera.

this is one area where modern AI (in this case, a "convolutional neural network") could create a more robust " 2.5D or "on rails" camera experience. It would be pretty straightforward to program an AI to find anywhere the camera view occludes the on screen action.

(this technique is already being used to fine tune the animation of 3D characters)

i feel like awkward cameras were a big problem in the early days of "3D platforming", but developers ended up solving it by mostly giving control of the camera completely to the player's right thumb. That's fine, of course, but it kind of killed the "2.5D" genre before it could be fully developed.

Post automatically merged: Jan 20, 2025

Zelda II would be a nicer game if they didn't have that life system as if it was a Mario game.

Yeah, it was kind of the same thing with Castlevania 2... i think that is one reason those games were disliked by many

 

[MasterEn]

Yeah its true although i dont think that is inherently bad. in fact, i think its a subgenre which wasnt developed enough.

i think the introduction of the dual shock controller made it easier to just give full control of the camera to the player than to work out the logistics of having a computer controlled camera.

this is one area where modern AI (in this case, a "convolutional neural network") could create a more robust " 2.5D or "on rails" camera experience. It would be pretty straightforward to program an AI to find anywhere the camera view occludes the on screen action.

(this technique is already being used to fine tune the animation of 3D characters)

i feel like awkward cameras were a big problem in the early days of "3D platforming", but developers ended up solving it by mostly giving control of the camera completely to the player's right thumb. That's fine, of course, but it kind of killed the "2.5D" genre before it could be fully developed.

good camera control is crucial to gameplay. if lots of movement is involved, the camera needs to show you where you are and what's coming at all times. i move thecamera around a fair amount in super mairio 64. it was slightly jarring to play mario 64 co-op and shotgun mario 64 and the camera keeps moving well after it should, but i started liking it after about 5 minutes.
i'm not sure if it counts, but paper mario would be an excellent example of a 2.5d platformer/rpg. one camera angle, but you always see what you need to. levels and areas can have extra layers on them like in the thousand year door, where you can sometimes jump between the foreground and background.

 

[newageretrohippie]

good camera control is crucial to gameplay. if lots of movement is involved, the camera needs to show you where you are and what's coming at all times. i move thecamera around a fair amount in super mairio 64. it was slightly jarring to play mario 64 co-op and shotgun mario 64 and the camera keeps moving well after it should, but i started liking it after about 5 minutes.
i'm not sure if it counts, but paper mario would be an excellent example of a 2.5d platformer/rpg. one camera angle, but you always see what you need to. levels and areas can have extra layers on them like in the thousand year door, where you can sometimes jump between the foreground and background.

I still havent played paper mario although i watched my brother play it some way back when... (or it might have been ttyd, i forget)

i think i gave up on n64 way too early. i just stopped playing it once i got a playstation... and then i didnt even get a gamecube, wii, or wii u... which was dumb of me

i did play OG mario 64 to 100%, but i didnt much like the camera especially in some of the later stages. It wasnt bad, but it wasnt great either... but it was easy to forgive *at the time*

 

[MasterEn]

I still havent played paper mario although i watched my brother play it some way back when... (or it might have been ttyd, i forget)

i think i gave up on n64 way too early. i just stopped playing it once i got a playstation... and then i didnt even get a gamecube, wii, or wii u... which was dumb of me

i did play OG mario 64 to 100%, but i didnt much like the camera especially in some of the later stages. It wasnt bad, but it wasnt great either... but it was easy to forgive *at the time*

by later stages, you probably mean the clock level. i don't like it either, or hazy maze cave. the water levels are at least quick. the other levels are good.
vanilla paper mario is very good, and there are mods that add difficulty and one that adds mechanics from the sequel too. it sucks through that there were only 3 paper mario games ever made. it was fun while they lasted.

 

[Somnia]

Crash Bandicoot is a glorified 2D platformer in 3D.

I do appreciate the game but I can hardly call it 3D (I mean it uses polygons but this is the equivalent of an isometric 3D game on a 16-bits but with a different perspective).

The original trilogy of games are definitely less realized as 3D platformers when compared to stuff like Mario 64, but is a lack of direct camera control and linear levels really enough to disqualify? Both the X and Z axis do matter and you're moving side to side as well as up and down. Maybe 2.5D is a more apt descriptor, just like the person you're replying to said. What is it lacking to be called a true 3D platformer aside from camera control and more open levels, or are those just super central to what you think a 3D platformer needs to be?

I don't know if it's a hot take but Mario 64 still is the most "open" 3D Mario game because Sunshine forces you to do episodes, Galaxy is much more linear as well as 3D World and even if Odyssey is more open it's still just you doing small tasks rather than doing major missions like in 64.

Honest question, don't M64 and Sunshine have more or less the same structure? You enter levels in each from a hub area where you complete set objectives to gather stars. What's different there? I've played tons of Sunshine I've still yet to play M64 beyond some time with it as a 5-6 year old kid at the babysitters (which I barely remember) so I genuinely don't know.

 

[Gorse]

WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT: I didn't like Super Paper Mario at all. I thought the visuals and character design were really ugly, the writing, while cute, was waaaay too self-satisfied, and the gameplay was agonizingly boring, especially by the Heaven/Hell chapter. That game asks you to do long, meandering, tedious tasks far too many times for my liking, and a lot of the "level design" is very confused and unfocused. I don't even like most of the music.

I'd genuinely rather play Origami King over SPM. Please, pick your jaw up off the floor.

 

[MasterEn]

Honest question, don't M64 and Sunshine have more or less the same structure? You enter levels in each from a hub area where you complete set objectives to gather stars. What's different there? I've played tons of Sunshine I've still yet to play M64 beyond some time with it as a 5-6 year old kid at the babysitters (which I barely remember) so I genuinely don't know.

technically, mario 64 is more open world. you're not supposed to, but you can collect the stars out of order. and only a few stars are locked behind power-up and you can get those by the time that defeat bowser in the dark world.
sunshine limits progression a bit more primarily because there aren't enough courses to house 120 stars. a good chunk of the stars are tied to blue coins, and they are hidden in different spots in specific shines. you can't actually get 100 coin shines whenever you want. only certain shines actually even have enough for 100 coins. some don't get pass 70 coins. it ends up feeling like there is a specific way that you are supposed to play, and there is little wiggle room to do it how you want to.

Post automatically merged: Jan 20, 2025

WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT: I didn't like Super Paper Mario at all. I thought the visuals and character design were really ugly, the writing, while cute, was waaaay too self-satisfied, and the gameplay was agonizingly boring, especially by the Heaven/Hell chapter. That game asks you to do long, meandering, tedious tasks far too many times for my liking, and a lot of the "level design" is very confused and unfocused. I don't even like most of the music.

I'd genuinely rather play Origami King over SPM. Please, pick your jaw up off the floor.

Super paper mario is the weakest one. i did like the story the most, but the partners could have been more varied. they are all just variations of fairies. one is fine. not 9-10. i had a player's guide when i got the game for christmas, so i used that during my playthrough. i haven't been back since then. i just play the 64 and gamecube installments. but at least there were characters in those games. from what i've heard about the newer ones. all characters and party members are just generic characters that join for a chapter and then leave.