Ratchet & Clank, Jak 2 & 3, Sly 2 & 3 - Platformers?

Metroid?

Let's hash it out. In my eyes, a platformer is a game that is DEFINED by its platforming. A game in which the primary mechanic (or at least one of them) is platforming, moving and jumping through an environment built for that purpose. Where that platforming is part of the game's challenge.

When I first heard games like Contra referred to as 'platformers', I was actually shocked. Because you were able to jump in almost every 2D game. To me, those were 'Action Games', because you could also shoot stuff. However, I can see a bit of a gray area there, since some of the platforming is kind of challenging. I still posit that the primary action in the game is 'shooting', though.

Metroid has a ton of platforming, but that game was about exploration, to me. And 'platformers' seldom are.

But maybe my criteria are too limited. What do you guys think?

By the way, the genre label is a totally meaningless distinction, but I thought it would be fun to argue about. It does bug me when people don't acknowledge Super Mario Sunshine as the best 'platformer' last gen, though, because, honestly, what game had better 'platforming'? I love Ratchet and Clank, but I don't remember it exercising my platforming muscles at all. 3D games are a bit different, I guess, because there aren't many pure 'platformers' these days. Even games like Mario include a bit of a puzzle element. But clambering around custom environments is still the star of the show.

Now that I said all of that, I do think of Crackdown as a platformer, because that is where the fun of the game was, to me. It may have been a co-lead mechanic, but it was a well-done, challenging one.

Mirror's Edge and Prince of Persia should have only focused on the platforming, since combat dragged them down. Assassin's Creed has a lot of platforming, but it feels sloppy to me.

URL to share (right click and copy)

Thinking/reading this thread, it seems as if the thing that often divides prospective platformers and actual defined "Platformers" is the presence of a readily available weapons. Mario's only defense before a Fireflower is his ability to jump on things. What if Mario had a projectile constantly? Would it be stripped of Platformer status? What if Contra didn't have guns? What if Mega Man could only slide past guys? What if our friend Ryu had no sword in Ninja Gaiden?

Yes, I just cracked the code.

@Marsh
@Zero
@TriforceBun
@anon_mastermind

Its nice to see last night's chat topic make it into a thread!

Cukes, bay-beee!!

I missed last night's chat, lol

@Marsh

You miss all of them! Just like, haha, everyone else.. *sigh*

@X-pert74

I wrote my previous post before I read what X-Pert wrote. I think he was on the right track with the weapon stuff, too.

The Mega Man games are platformers. The jumping around on stuff takes precedence over shooting stuff.

Castlevania is an action series. Killing stuff with your whip and holy water takes precedence over jumping on stuff.

Contra is action, for all the reasons mentioned before. It's more of a "run-n-gun" game.

Ghosts'n'Goblins is the same as Contra, for all the same reasons.

Metroid is... um. Not sure. The first game did a decent amount of platforming... but there were some intense action sequences, too. I dunno. It's an adventure game. There, I put it in a genre. Done. Let's move on.

Not sure about those Sony games you mentioned. Haven't played 'em. I've played the original Spyro though - I don't recall a lot of actual platforming in that game - probably had the same amount of that as Banjo-Kazooie on N64. What genre do the bear & bird fall under?

Haha, this thread is pretty OT, even by Negative World standards.

Banjo-Kazooie... gotta be an Adventure game, right? It seems like you mostly run up stuff in that game, rather than jump up. Super Mario 64 has Adventure elements, but also a lot of platforming. BK really focused on them.

@Mr_Mustache
Hey, Mario was originally supposed to have a gun, or something! Wasn't he? Some sort of projectile.

@X-pert74
Castlevania might have been in the running once upon a time, but if it ever had platformer status, it has lost it with the endless straight hallways of today.

I can no longer eat cucumbers. Well, I can, but there is a hefty price to pay. And they're just cucumbers.

But I miss them.

I define a platformer as a game whose primary challenge is the navigation of the environment to reach a goal or end-point. There may be enemies in the levels, but they are secondary to the overall challenge of successfully making it through the environment.

An action game is a game whose primary challenge is defeating the enemies. Often you will complete a level by defeating a particularly hard enemy at the end of each level. There can be environmental navigation challenges, but they are secondary to the overall challenge of defeating the enemies.

Of course there are many hybrid games that could be described as action-platformers that try to balance the two elements or alternate between them.

Contra tends to lean more heavily to the action side of things than the platformer.
Megaman is a pretty good balanced action-platformer I would say.
Ghosts and Goblins skews more to the side of action.
Castlevania... I haven't played enough of any of them to give a truly informed opinion.

@anandxxx Oh, yeah I guess the newer Castlevania titles aren't really platformers anymore. I was speaking mainly of the original Castlevania, since that's the only one I've beaten.

EDIT: @Mr_Mustache Ninja Gaiden is definitely a platformer. There's action in it too, but there are tons of insane gaps and terrain to traverse.

I've always given a lot of those games hybrid classifications.

Mega Man, I would say, is an action-platformer. It's a game that involves shooting that revolves around platforming. If you take the shooting or platforming out of Mega Man, then it's just not the same game. The action is the emphasis, and is made more intense by its platforming. The levels in each game vary from intense platforming, to hardly any at all.

Mario only gets the ability to shoot upon receiving a powerup. His gameplay isn't hinged on him being able to shoot things. His gameplay is defined by the platforming. Any shooting is a secondary element that is more or less optional.

Contra, again, I'd say is an action game with platforming elements. An action-platformer.

Metroid, to me, is an action-adventure game. It's an adventure game that involves a lot of shooting.

Zelda, I would also say, is an action-adventure game. I think it and Metroid belong in the same genre, even if they go about it in different ways.

Secret of Mana? Action-RPG. It's an RPG, yes, but one that revolves around realtime combat and puzzle solving. Final Fantasy wouldn't be an action RPG, because few things ever even happen in realtime. The gameplay isn't hinged on a player's ability to navigate obstacles and hazards.

The true "adventure" games to me will always be the ones that take you on epic journeys, but not with a lot of action or intensity. I guess something like Myst or the recently released Back to the Future game would fall into that category to me.

Some games are just straight up action games. God of War isn't hinged on anything but it's combat. There is platforming here and there, but the game puts such little emphasis on it. You could probably take the platforming out of the game and the game wouldn't be too much different.

So yeah, I'd say there are definitely classifications, but there's often a lot of overlapping. Even though some games are a certain genre at heart, the removal of other elements would make them completely different games.

@anandxxx

Yeah, I recall him originally supposed to have a projectile. The history of videogames would be changed forever.

@X-pert74

How is Ninja Gaiden generally defined? The other site has it at "Action." Can't really argue with that. You fight everyonnne.

Also according to them, "Platformers" I own:
--wow, Wizards and Warriors?? I never would've expected that..
Castlevania II, apparently, too..

DKC stuff, Mario, and some other assorted games, no surprises there.

Do you guys think that well-defined genres can help create the right expectations, and possibly improve enjoyment of the game? I mean, when you know what you're getting into, you should theorically be better prepared to appreciate it for what it is, right?

I had this discussion with someone, specifically about Metroid Prime being an FPA instead of an FPS. I was called "batshit insane".

@Pandareus

Metroid Prime SHOULDN'T be an FPS. Which one were you? I think you were the FPA game. I don't recall doing a lot of jumping and morphball stuff in GoldenEye.. Or Wolfenstein.


I think the Genres are a good tool to help you find your way onto a games trail. There was that giant colorful ring that some site made up redefining genres and things that were close. I didn't like it at the time, but I think I appreciate it more now. And I like colors.

I'm pretty much always like RPG's. There are a few that I don't like.
So yes, I agree?

Of course I was debating on the FPA side. I don't recall the specifics of the argument, but I was trying to make the point that there was actually a good reason to stick with the FPA terminology, that calling the game an FPS came with certain expectations that Metroid Prime wouldn't meet, and that possibly that could led to people playing MP, feeling it's just "a poor FPS" and not understanding what it really is, and writing it off.

Whereas calling it an FPA might help predispose people to approach the game on its own terms.

@Pandareus I definitely agree with that.

If you told a group of Metroid fans "Hey, there's a new Metroid game out, and it's a first person shooter," they're probably not going to be excited about it.

If you (more accurately) said "Hey, there's a new Metroid game. It's an adventure game that has a first person perspective," they might not be so apprehensive.

Genres breed a sense of familiarity amongst consumers of any product. They also allow us to compartmentalize subjects that are very varied and diverse. And often, things come along that don't quite fit anywhere, and then new genres are formed.

I'm a big fan of the "slash" myself. That is, action/platformer, action/RPG, etc. A lot of games just don't belong in one genre, the same ways that a lot of movies don't (action/comedy, action/sci-fi, sci-fi/drama).

I think Panda was just trying to make sure Metroid Prime didn't have to play alone on the playground.

"Action-RPG" is another interesting genre. I was thinking about doing a roundtable just for that one. We could define it, give our favorite examples, list what we want out of an 'Action-RPG'. It fascinates me, because it's a genre that should appeal to me (to everyone?), but I feel like it seldom does.

I generally like classifying stuff. I haven't done so as much with video games, but when I was really into music I would classify stuff into very specific genres, right down to the specific album for each band.

I think the act of classification is an interesting exercise, just like defining a word is, but I don't think it should necessarily be the be-all, end-all in someone's decision to play a game.

That said, I don't play RPGs, so what do I know?

@anandxxx I like classification, because to me the difference between third-person and first-person shooters is very significant. Yet oftentimes online I'll see people call games like Gears of War an FPS, which is totally misleading. I think differentiating between the two is important, since there are people who are going to like one, but not the other.

@Mr_Mustache Action fits for Ninja Gaiden; I just think it also works as a platformer.

@anandxxx

When I hear "Action-RPG" the first game EVERY time in my brain is Secret of Mana. I think its the Pinnacle of such. I even capitalized 'pinnacle.'

I guess Muramasa could almost be there too?

@anandxxx Well we're talking about video games, and most of our examples are on Nintendo consoles, so it is more on-topic than like 95% of threads nowadays. Not that I'm complaining, it's kind of slow times for Nintendo so there isn't much on-topic to talk about.

I'm going to analyze this! Because I'm bored!

Okay! I think the main appeal of the game should define its genre. Like, when people think "What is Game X all about?", the number one thing that springs to mind should define it.

What is Mario all about? Jumping. He jumps to attack, jumps to get items, jumps to progress in the game. Mario is a platformer. Doi. DKC is a platformer as well for the same reasons. Sonic too, the original 2D games at least. Kirby's a platformer, he can't get through the levels with out jumping and flying on platforms. All his other powers and abilities along the way are mostly optional fluff(no pun).

What is Metroid all about? Exploration. There's lots of jumping, shooting, and action, but the main way to progress in the game is to explore the environment and exploit every tool at your disposal to progress and navigate almost equally. Thus I'd say Metroid is in the "Adventure" genre primarily, Action/Platforming/Shooting is all secondary since they're main purpose is to help you explore/progress. I'd put games like Zelda, Okami, and Crystal Bearers in the same genre.

What is Castlevania all about? Killin monsters. The platforming in the game is minimal(and terrible), and the exploration aspects used in the later titles are decent, but unlike Metroid you are given far more combat options/spells/statistics/etc. and its the main focus of the system. There are RPG elements, but they aren't fully realized as there isn't (consistently) an overworld or multiple towns/shops or other party members and various other aspects that define an RPG. The primary goal is to control a single character and slay foul beasts from hell in real time and make your way to the king of the beasts from hell and slay him, with a myriad of weapons and moves at your disposal. Thus I'd define Castlevania as more of an Action title primarily, platforming and adventure secondarily.

What is Contra all about? Shootin' stuff. Theres some platforming yeah, but its just to get you moving so you can shoot more stuff. All the powerups in the game are for shootin' stuff. The only way to kill enemies/bosses is to shoot 'm up, and shoot 'm up a lot. You could almost say you need to "shmup" them a lot. Really, every other aspect of the series takes a backseat to the shmup-ing. That said, Contra is more than obviously a Turn-based Strategy game.

I do not know what Ghosts 'N Goblins is and I'm pretty certain it is not a video game, and never was.

Now what is Ratchet & Clank all about? A lot of people call it a platformer, but as it was stated, "platforming" isn't really the thing people think of first when mentioning R&C. No, its appeal is quite obviously the weapons, the shooting, the combat, the "blowin' shit up" aspect. As such I'd define R&C as an Action game primarily, and platforming takes a back seat (though its still somewhat important).

Going from there, what is Jak & Daxter all about? Well, the original was an honest-to-goodness 3D platformer through and through. But after Jak 2 it pretty much became a hodgepodge of multiple genres with platforming, shooting, combat, vehicles/driving, and sandbox setup. However, at the end of the day, what the main meat of the gameplay focuses on is still moving Jak(and Daxter) around this big 3D world on foot, through all kinds of terrain in which jumping is the number 1 most used element. Therefore Jak (unlike Ratchet) is still a platformer heart, just with many other elements(mainly Action elements) thrown in. To be more specific, I'd call it an Action-Platformer.

WHICH BRINGS ME TO MY NEXT POINT: Prefixes.

Using prefixes to better define a game is okay, you just gotta make sure where to put it in the title. While Jak is an Action-Platformer(because platforming is the root), I'd say Ratchet is a Platforming-Action game(because action is the root). To elaborate, if you have a duck, and you spray it with a hose(he had it coming), would you call it a "wet duck"? Or a "duck wet"? No that would be weird. The subject (the duck) comes second, therefore the main aspect of the game should come second when described.

Examples: What is Kingdom Hearts all about? Disney/Square epic RPG crossover. Being such, it has a heavy focus on complex story, lots of cutscenes, overworlds and exploration, multiple party members and characters from all around, tons of items and equipment, levels, stats, etc. etc. etc., basically everything an RPG needs. Even though it's combat system is well-developed, real-time and action based, its not what the series is known for best, and easily isn't the only or even primary focus of the games. Thus I'd call KH an Action RPG, since it's RPG style is the root, while its action combat interface is secondary. I'm sure many would agree.

Muramasa on the other hand has an incredibly deep combat system with over a hundred weapons with individual powers and moves to use, and a mass majority of the game takes place with you fighting off hordes of enemies and epic bosses. While it has a decent story, stats, levels, items, etc., and that all plays quite heftily in playing the game, the focus is obviously on the combat system and killing things with ridiculous combos. Its more of an action game than an RPG, but still plenty of RPG. Thus I'd call it a "Role-playing Action title, rather than an Action-RPG. Some of the Castlevania titles could be called this as well, depending on how you play them.

Now it gets tricky, so listen REAL good.

What is Mega Man all about? Now see, Mega Man is one of those rare games that almost perfectly combines two genres together. In Mega Man, jumping is just as important as shooting and vice versa. Theres plenty of platforming in the game and its quite difficult. Jumping is also necessary to avoid enemies and attacks and insta-death hazards more often than not. Shooting will kill Mega's enemies, but jumping is what will keep him alive long enough to do so. Meanwhile shooting/projectiles is Mega Man's primary and sometimes only form of attack and interaction with the enemies he faces - thus its just as important as jumping. Its very hard to classify Mega Man as either a platformer or a shooter, when really he's both equally. Thus Mega Man can only be known as a Shatformer.



Now for some random points.

Sandbox - I consider this to be more of a progression setup than a full genre. It could be applied to multiple titles or genres really. You could have an FPS that plays in sandbox setup. You could have a racing/driving game that plays in sandbox set up. Same goes for "Metroidvania" or similar terms.

FPS, Hack'nSlash, RTS, MMORPGs, SHMUP, Brawlers, and other terms: These terms are more like subsets of other genres rather than full genres in and of themselves. HnS and Brawlers are a subset of Action, SHMUP and FPS are a subset of Shooter, RTS is a subset of Strategy. Mamorpajas are a subset of Erpajas. This is because they immediately imply the aspects of the genre they come from, and can't be what they are without also being part of that genre. Of course these terms can help define a game much better than the general term and can be used interchangeably in most cases. The main categorys though I would consider to be:

1. Action (focus on combat/destruction)
2. Adventure (focus on exploration/navigation/detailed progression)
3. Platformer (focus on jumping)
4. Shooter (focus on shooting/projectile combat)
5. Fighting (focus on beating up the other guy)
6. Racing (specifically racing)
7. RPG (focus on fleshed out storyline and lots of character and character modification options and lots of other stuff)
8. Puzzle (focus on puzzle-solving gameplay)
9. Strategy (focus on moving units/pieces around a field of some sort to defeat opposing factions)
10. Sim (focus on recreating real-life aspects in a game)

And probably some more.

For some random games that push the envelope:

Ace Attorney is an Adventure game because its focus is exploring/investigating your environments, solving puzzles in order to steadily progress through the game/story by finding various items/tools to help you, even if those items are pieces of evidence, information, people or the words people themselves say - its up to you to actually find them and figure out how to put them to use. To be specific, it would be a Point & Click Adventure game.

Portal is a Puzzle game. Even though its FP, you're key aspect is not to shoot or destroy things, or to even explore/progress(though Portal 2 seems to have more of this) but to solve elaborate puzzles using the tools you are given, often times one after another. To be specific, it would be a First-Person Puzzle game.

Smash Bros. is still a Fighting game, since the key aspect is to defeat the other player(s) using everything your character can do to your disposal, while they can do the same. Why some people don't consider it a "real" fighter is beyond me. If I had to specify, I'd call it more of a Platforming-Fighter.

Star Fox is a Shooter, specifically a SHMUP, as a SHMUP is defined as having railed/constantly moving gameplay, hordes of enemies and things to shoot, and quick story modes that focus more on high scores, replayability and difficulty rather than longevity.

Wow this turned out a lot longer than planned. Good fun though. Obviously its hard to categorize everything, but I don't think its impossible.