Comment by overdunk
8 years ago
I hated this god damned game. The sound effects. The characters. The tropical theme. The color palette. The absence of anything worth knowing about within the context of game play.
You played this game for 15 minutes, and you never had to play it again, because you had already explored everything the game had to offer.
My cousin had the original Sony Playstation and this game, and even to this day, the only game that the original Playstation had, worth owning or knowing about, was and is Metal Gear Solid.
"because you had already explored everything the game had to offer"
The value of platformers comes from level design. Crash certainly had great level designs. What youre saying is basically like "super mario sucks because all you do is jump and run the whole game"
Crash Bandicoot had repellent level design.
Placing it next to Super Nintendo's Super Mario World is like placing catfood on the same table as Thankgiving dinner.
Believe me, I suffered through more than 15 minutes of the game.
I'd agree to some extent - there was far too much focus on "frustration" based gameplay for my liking. Some of the levels are simply much too difficult for more casual players. I don't think I personally finished the game without using one of those cheat memory cards that gave you 99 lives etc, which was never the case with any Mario instalment. I still remember it fondly though, and visually it's aged incredibly well for a 3D PlayStation title.
I'd argue Crash is often held in high regard more because at the time in the mid-nineties it was assumed a console _had_ to have a big mascot franchise in the mould of Mario or Sonic, and Crash was a great character design. Many people seemed to be excited that Sony "finally" had a Mario competitor. I certainly felt at the time that Crash was going to grow into this role for Sony, which didn't really happen.
2 replies →