Comment by maruhan2
8 years ago
"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.
Most of the frustration I remember had to do with the lack of depth perception, especially in Warped (which I remember best). It was certainly a fun game - I'd spend hours on end playing it - but it was also frustrating to be unable to properly judge exactly how far Crash needs to jump lest he plummet into a bottomless pit (or a stack of nitro boxes).
1 reply →