Hey I can accept that RE is the only survival horror game. Like literally the first RE, only, seeing as how Capcom came up with the words there and it's pretty much singular in how it executed the ideas in it. The following games in the series and the wannabes weren't as stringent, weren't as "pure".
I actually love Spyro and consider it the greatest platforming series on the PSX and one of the greatest ever (the rest are Sly, Ratchet, and Jak, maybe 3D Mario). One of the first real video games I ever played, alongside Crash 1. I was 5. Monocled of you to recognize its greatness. 1, 2, and 3, not just 1. Though 1 and 2 are the best.PS1 has some of the very best platformers ever made:
Tomb Raider 1 & 2: Stone cold classics. Turned into popamole garbage on PS2 and beyond.
Spyro 1: This game is actually fucking great believe it or not. Everything Spyro after is shit, on both PS1 and PS2.
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. Yet another series that turned into shit on the PS Poo.
No low-grade shit here.
I could post numerous other examples, but trying to keep the thread to certified gems only unlike you.
Furthermore, in general, all action games in the 90s had platforming. e.g FPS had platforming. Stealth games had platforming. In the 2000s, suddenly that element was stripped back considerably (especially FPS), in addition to other things like navigation (level design was more linear and handholdey on the whole).
The biggest factor that generally makes the PS2 inferior is undoubtedly level design across the board. There is no beating the 90s for that. Big open creative diverse multi-genre levels with no handholding. Also difficulty. A lot of franchises and new IPs started to get a bit too easy. Still not retard-tier like the generation after, but it was noticeable.
You're being needlessly combative, I am getting "precocious teenager with a superiority complex" vibes. Or you're eastern European. Either way, what exactly are all of the PSX platforming greats that no one seems to know about or remember? Tomba 1 and 2 are great. Spyro is great. Ape Escape is great. Tomb Raider as well. But that's basically it for 3D platforming on PSX...Whereas PS2 has tons of great ones.
I get excited about games requiring competence. I don't enjoy movement around wide flat land and occasionally jumping onto platforms that are a little less wide that you have to work to miss- typical of this degraded form of the genre. R&C is a fun kiddie shooter, but the actual platforming is inconsequential compared to even middling platformers on Sega Genesis. I think Chuck Rock was more demanding than Sly Coper. The games that follow the Mario 64 way generally suffer compared to the alternatives like PoP, TR, ME.
I agree. In many ways the PS2 generation (despite being a personal soft spot for me) has started the decline of gaming. Now there was still great games in the era, but trends that ruined gaming like shift to realism, larger audiences, easier games and even the focus on cutscenes started here. As such, in terms of overall game quality, 6th gen < 5th gen.
This is exactly what I mean, couldn't put it in better words myself.
It is cringe and reddit to "Checkmate" yourself, tip that fedora more please, thank you. Especially before I have a chance to respond...Lol. Spyro 2 and 3 have better mechanics than 1. I play games for stellar gameplay mechanics. I don't know about you. Yes, the setting and atmosphere shape the experience as well, but 2 and 3 have that just as well as the first. They have different strengths/unique things about them. The minigame stuff is bad in 3 but the core levels in 3 are still as good as anything in 1. There are just less of them. Also lol, nice going naming literally like 5 games. Between Jak, Sly, Ratchet, and PoP, that is like 12 games between them. All truly great, and yes, your autistic inane definition as well.
Nope, just the first game. Spyro 2 and 3 lose all the charm and uniqueness of the first (particularly the setting), introduce a bunch of annoying characters yammering in your ear, as well as too many silly mini-games instead of focusing on excellent grand scale level design like the first. I'm not saying they're bad, they're just not to the same high standard.
PoP has pretty great platforming but the combat is sadly shit and drags it down. And in typical PS2 standard, it's quite linear.
Anyways, I cited four games. Absolute classics. There are no platformers 2D or 3D on the PS2 that are on their level of incline. Plenty decent ones, nothing monocled. Pretty standard for the PS2; lots of good games but almost nothing truly great. There's numerous others that I think are cool and better than most shit on PS2, such as the Duke Nukem Tomb Raider clones (TTK/LOTB), but I am just sticking to the truly best stuff to highlight the discrepancy in quality.
Checkmate, moving on to the next genre in which PS1 absolutely dominates with 90s quality.
ME? No platformer is coming to mind with that abbreviation.
Mass Effect is shit. What's great about it, non-existent level design that's just linear corridors with waist-high cover for mole-popping? Pointless empty moon buggy sections? Garbage-tier RPG systems? Pathetic virtual relationships for virgins? Only pseudo-intellectual storyfaggots think this trash is good. It has fuck all to offer, and it's sad you place it in the same category as the great New Vegas.
Ah, that's where you get the name "Lemming" from.
Then, simply, the "playground"-y kind of feeling and thrill of just jumping/movement of the controls of the character do not do it for you. That is fine. But it's retarded to think just because those other games require more competence means they are better overall experiences or superior platformers. No. In theory, a 3D game requiring the same kind of tight platforming as the best of the 2D genre would be superior because it is more fun to move around in 3D space than 2D for these kinds of games. If you want challenging platforming in 3D, play Maximo: Ghosts to Glory. Ash is too pleb to understand it, maybe you will fare better. Also early Tomb Raider has complete ass controls. Genres grow and expand. They're still classics, but that is a huge component. There are also fun mod levels for A Hat in Time that are more akin to the kind of challenge you are seeking.
Level Design, systems etc you mentioned are equally up to muster in 2 and 3 as in 1. The thing that 1 has over 2 and 3 is the atmosphere. You engage in a very low level of ad hominem. Smacks of internet arguers from 2010. And I was talking about Spyro specifically for gameplay. Atmosphere and other things matter far more in Silent Hill. You filled that gap in for yourself, although I supposed I could have been clearer. Are you from Eastern Europe? Just wondering, no reason.
If you abstain from taming dinosaurs as protection, ARK turns from farce into a pretty neat horror experience with death at every footstep. I played over 500 hours in a single game, but only explored about 10% of the playing area (and almost nothing of its caves or ocean depths).
You wouldn't know what good combat is even if it hit you the face
And how is that a bad thing given that SoT was structured to emulate a "1001 nights" tale?
And yet it has tons of trash barebones repetitive easy combat
Also this is called going full storyfag. Never go full storyfag.Oh pacing is a concern to the point we can't even add a little non-linearity and level design complexity, nope, it's gotta be 100% linear. Resident Evil 4 has ten times more level design complexity that PoP, and that's pretty much my baseline level of acceptable linearity. It doesn't necessarily HAVE to be vast highly complex non-linear levels, as that does have pacing implications. A small amount however goes a long way with no real damage to pace. No truly great game is 100% linear. Even 2D side-scrolling kiddie games like Sonic the Hedgehog 2 and Super Mario Bros 3 are vastly more complex.
So they're retarded and can't make pretty locations if they have to worry about non-linearity? How in the world did castle builders of the old world produce such beautiful architecture, humans are incapable of thinking in more than a straight line! Oh wait no that's just zoomers. Dumber than people in the 12th century most of whom couldn't even read and were focused on their survival/daily needs more than anything.
90s games destroy 2000s in the story department too btw, and they did so without retard-tier gameplay.
I'll make a thread about what makes good melee combat someday
The combat is serviceable and the game never gets bogged down in itAnd yet it has tons of trash barebones repetitive easy combat
The pacing is big reason why the game is so enjoyable
Is a completely different gaming experience, with distinct mechanics, focus, art and development needs
Alright master game dev
No, it's just that creating a computer architectural model of a fantasy maharaja's palace wasn't the goal of the devs
Ok then
Running out of bullshit, huh?
