/vr/ - Retro Games

>>4959750
Sure, except for the parts that are clearly platforming.

who the fuck wants minigames in a platformer?

>>4276963
>Even Naughty Dog said that Spyro had linear circuit levels (a few side paths doesn't change that) and they were friends with Insomnia
The levels aren't that linear. They're all designed AROUND one linear path, but there's far more depth to them than that alone. I disagree with Naughty Dog's assessment here.
>Nobody gives a shit about movement in Spyro. You are forcing its importance.
It's literally the most important part of the game, just like every platformer. It's what makes it fun and unique.
>Your characters in those games have shitloads of moves and the enemies don't fall into any "archetype" that make Spyro so boring.
The enemies in Spyro are far more varied and numerous than the enemies in SM64. Not that that matters, because combat in either game is a fucking afterthought.
>The thing is that when you don't have Sparx collecting gems is really fucking annoying due to Spyro's massive turning angle.
Jump and pivot you fucking dunce. Jumping makes you turn more sharply and more quickly. This complaint is literally on tier with the mongoloids who complain about not being able to turn around without running in a semicircle in SM64.
>Maybe saying Spyro wasn't a good game was unfair but it's clearly a B-rate platformer closer to Croc than to Mario 64.
No, Spyro 1 is absolutely a top tier platformer. If you were talking about the Spyro game on PS2 and Gamecube I'd agree.