|
|
|
A Nintendo community by the fans!
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|
Mega Man, Contra, Castlevania, Ghosts'n'Goblins - Platformers? [roundtable]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
02/24/11, 18:40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think a more important question to me is... why do human beings feel the need to classify everything into tight little packages? I don't think stuff is that simple. And I also think that it creates an issue where someone comes up with something original and some publisher turns it down because it's not easily classifiable, which bothers me. Why are we so bad at appreciating things we can't define? I feel this way about music too. It's weird getting into the electronic scene and seeing all of these various genre definitions. I have no idea where my stuff fits in. For my music I just make up a bunch of my own goofy genres. And then I add "core" to the end because that somehow makes it a real genre or something. Anyway, if I had to decide here, I'd say that maybe Contra isn't about platforming at its core (except for the stages where it is) but Mega Man is just as much about the platforming as the shooting, I think. Castlevania is probably in between Mega Man and Contra. Ratchet fits in somewhere around there. Ghosts N' Goblins as well, although Maximo had significant platforming. Metroid barely has any real platforming. I didn't really answer the question though, did I? Oh well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zero said:I think a more important question to me is... why do human beings feel the need to classify everything into tight little packages? I don't think stuff is that simple. And I also think that it creates an issue where someone comes up with something original and some publisher turns it down because it's not easily classifiable, which bothers me. Why are we so bad at appreciating things we can't define? I was just thinking about this yesterday. The Smithsonian is having a vote on which video games should be featured in the museum, across a variety of different systems and eras. Good idea, except that they have a very strange classification system: they pick three games per "genre" for each system: Adventure, Action, Target, and Strategy. The problem with this is that some really lame games end up being nominated on systems that don't have a great representation of those preset genres. The SNES has so many good RPGs, yet due to the preset categorization, the only 3 that got put in Adventure were Chrono Trigger, LttP and EarthBound. No FF3! (and I'd argue that LttP and CT shouldn't be in the same category anyway) DKCR, Kirby, and NSMBW are definitely all platformers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The main element of Contra is shooting, but it can satisfy that platformer itch; especially with certain titles. Some games like Super C don't really have as many "platforms", but the original Contra definitely does. Even with Super C though, you're jumping around a lot of the time, but mainly to avoid enemy bullets.
Mega Man I can see calling a platformer. I never thought of it as one at the time, but since revisiting the series a few years ago, it's really occurred to me how little focus is placed on shooting enemies, in comparison to games like Contra or Metal Slug. In every single main game of the series, platforming is a major element.
I'm not as familiar with the other two series, but I can see calling Castlevania a platformer, and what I played of Ghosts'n'Goblins seemed like a platformer as well; just like a really ridiculously insane platformer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|