/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.3261784]

Crash Bandicoot 2 was the best game of the 5th gen. Better than Mario 64.

>it also had the best soundtrack

https://youtu.be/pNMVkMQyAIw

[Anonymous No.3261792]

>>3261784
>best soundtrack
lolno

[Anonymous No.3261793]

Inb4 500 replies.

[Anonymous No.3261837]

>>3261792
name one better one.
>you can't

[Anonymous No.3261905]

>Trash Bandicunt
>good anything

[Anonymous No.3261912]

Tenchu Stealth Assassins was better than both

[Anonymous No.3261927]

inb4 Jumping Trash hipsters

[Anonymous No.3261934]

>>3261912
>Tenchu Stealth Assassins
that game is garbageville

[Anonymous No.3261939]

>>3261837
My asshole after a bowl of five alarm chili

[Anonymous No.3262180]

>>3261939
you're a funny guy.

[Anonymous No.3262184]

>>3261905
I bet ur leik fookin 12 m8

[Anonymous No.3262216]

>>3262180
For you

[Anonymous No.3262332]

>>3261784
>sleep tight dead franchise

[Anonymous No.3262363]

Played SM64 for the first time as an adult so no nostalgia goggles and I have to admit it is a far more ambitious game.

Getting platinum relics in time trials was the most satisfaction I've experienced in a platformer however.

[Anonymous No.3262537]

>>3261784
Sleep tight dead franchise

[Anonymous No.3263342]

>>3262537
E3, just watch

[Anonymous No.3263348]

>>3261793
>crash thread
>500 replies

lol

[Anonymous No.3263376]

>>3261784
You have been visited by the ORANGE HALLWAY DOG OF PANTS AND LOADING

Watered-down, momentumless platforming will come to you, but only if you post "sleep tight dead franchise" in this thread

[Anonymous No.3263383]

>>3263342
Can't wait to be disappointed in Sony all over again

[Anonymous No.3263401]

I'd have to agree with op here. Gorgeous graphics, spot on sound, no annoying retarded plumber...

[Anonymous No.3263407]

sleep tight dead franchise

[Anonymous No.3264869]

>>3263376
>loading
God bless those 2 seconds.

[Anonymous No.3265563]

>>3261784
It wasn't. I liked Crash a lot, but it is a straigt-line platformer, there wasn't much to explore, it was all about going from point A to B

But it was when I read about the soundtrack that I understood that this tread was bait.

Mario 64 is way better than any Crash[|spoiler]

[Anonymous No.3265569]

Mario 64 was definitely far far more ambitious. It really set the standard for the 3D exploration platformer which Crash really isn't an example of (Spyro would be closer). It doesn't really compare. Mario 64 set out to define just what gaming would be like in the 3D era, whereas most of Crash 2's levels could conceivably have been done in a SNES.

that being said I do think that Crash 2 is more focused, more fun and has tighter gameplay. Mario 64's physics are still kinda weird for me.

[Anonymous No.3265573]

>>3262332
Looking at the way some of the later titles were going, I'm glad it's dead, not a Sonic-esque zombie that occasionally gets everybody's hopes up only to smash them back down again.

[Anonymous No.3265576]

>>3263376
sleep tight dead franchise

[Anonymous No.3265579]

>>3265569
I agree with this.

Back in 1996 Crash Bandicoot (1) was a technological marvel due to it's outstanding graphics. I still think they look great now and would have been at home on the PS2 during the early years. However, Mario 64 was far more innovative in its gameplay and taught everybody how 3D movement, camera controls (still kind of dodgy, but set the standard of having player-controlled camera) etc should be done.

The thing is, I actually do prefer Crash 1 and 2 (haven't played 3). Although they're far less ambitious gameplay wise, where most of the levels could have easily been 2D, I love a simple linear platformer. Not to say Mario 64 isn't still great, because it is, but Crash is just a good, classic platformer, while Mario 64 was something new entirely, for better and for worse.

[Anonymous No.3265617]

>>3263376
sleep tight dead franchise

[Anonymous No.3265623]

Super Mario 64 > Spyro 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crash

[Anonymous No.3265676]

Why all this sudden Crash Bandicoot hating lately?
I mean, it's good that the fans finally ackowledge 2 as the best one instead of 3, but it's getting an insane amount of haters. What happened? They're still very fun games and look gorgeus even nowadays.

[Anonymous No.3265709]

>>3265676
because people like to shit talk and say Crash Bandicoot is the best, if not great. it's definitely nothing great, but tolerable. A lot of the time you're just hitting or jumping on people, and the level design is pretty scarce. For me it's like a 3D Super mario bros except not as good controls because of the lack of running and giving Crash the ability to hit plus the lack of momentous jump. My point is, those who like to talk about Crash Bandicoot tend to overrate it's platforming.

[Anonymous No.3265716]

>>3261784
Not watching your shitty video.

[Anonymous No.3265734]

>3D plateformer
>it's just corridors
simply eric

[Anonymous No.3265738]

>>3265676
It's just one dedicated shitposter samefagging.
Kinda like the australian guy from the castlevania threads.

[Anonymous No.3265784]

>>3265579
>Back in 1996 Crash Bandicoot (1) was a technological marvel due to it's outstanding graphics. I still think they look great now and would have been at home on the PS2 during the early years

Why are Crash Bandicoot fans so hyperbolic about their favorite game series?

Pic related is Crash Bandicoot and Donald Duck Goin' Quackers (an early shovelware PS2 games with similar gameplay to Crash Bandicoot). Both captured from their native resolutions and upscaled to 640x480. As you can see, the quality of Crash Bandicoot's graphics is nowhere near what even the worst quality PS2 games look like.

[Anonymous No.3265793]

>>3265784
Fuck off with your objective evidence, the only currency we trade in around here is nostalgia.

[Anonymous No.3265809]

>>3265784
>He actually spent time on this bait
You can't make this shit up

[Anonymous No.3265818]

>>3265784
its because of that one article where naugtydog fellate themselves about how they exploited the ps capabilities or something, people started parroting the "crahs was a technological marvel" after that.

[Anonymous No.3265821]

>>3265818
Why are you replying to your own post?

[Anonymous No.3265828]

>>3265821
you wish, poochster

[Anonymous No.3265835]

>>3265828
Your samefagging is so obvious that it almost hurts.
Why don't you go to your /v/ thread? >>>/v/339812376
Maybe you'll find someone as autistic as you.

[Anonymous No.3265867]

>>3261784
Crash 3 was better.

[Anonymous No.3265873]

>>3265784
Crash literally looks better than that game though.

[Anonymous No.3265898]

>>3265784
>He even filtered the crash side in an attempt to make it look worse
lol

[Anonymous No.3265961]

>>3265898
>filtering
>makes 3D games look worse

[Anonymous No.3266008]

>>3265961
>damage control
lol

[Anonymous No.3267485]

>>3265676
There is nothing 'gorgeous' about Crash Bandicoot games. I don't even dislike them, but that is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.3267586]

>>3267485
What? Crash had godlike graphics compared to other ps1 shit

[Anonymous No.3267930]

>>3267485
Compare Crash to other PSX games. It has nice animations, vivid colours, it's fluid enough, very little loading times, etc., while its coetaneous PSX games had clunky models, mist effect...
It's not particularly beautiful but its graphics have aged quite well enough IMO.

[Anonymous No.3268210]

>>3261784

I agree.

[Anonymous No.3268217]

>>3265784

Comparing Crash 1 to an early PS2 title is a bit of a stretch.

But did you see the very game you use as an example, Goin' Quackers, on the PS1, and how a similar game on rails released 4 years laters onm the same console STILL didn't compare?

[Anonymous No.3268218]

>>3261784
>the best game of the 5th gen

Strongly disagree. Do you seriously believe that?

[Anonymous No.3268225]

>>3267930

Also motherfucking flexible joints as early as 1996.

If there's one thing that's a turnoff with old character models, it's that their arms and legs are just floating boxes that aren't connected. Crash got it right, even though it became limiting with vertex animation.

Oh yeah, and Crash's face was all 3D too. Most games from the 5th gen just had a flat face projected on to the model.

[Anonymous No.3268230]

>>3268218

> Do you seriously believe that?

See, this is the problem with Crash haters. They jump right into questioning the integrity of people who like Crash Bandicoot.

[Anonymous No.3268250]

>>3268230

I mean, I'm not a Crash hater, I just don't see how it is the best 5th gen game or even close... what makes you think that?

I played it as a kid, it was alright but would never call it one of the best 5th gen games, not even one of the best PSX games.

[Anonymous No.3268289]

>>3268225
>Also motherfucking flexible joints as early as 1996.

[Anonymous No.3268294]

>>3268225
>>Also motherfucking flexible joints as early as 1996.

[Anonymous No.3268297]

>>3268294

Don't post Mario, it triggers Crash fanboys badly.

[Anonymous No.3268303]

>>3268225
>Most games from the 5th gen just had a flat face projected on to the model.

[Anonymous No.3268308]

>>3268225
>>Most games from the 5th gen just had a flat face projected on to the model.

[Anonymous No.3268314]

>>3268225
>Most games from the 5th gen just had a flat face projected on to the model.

[Anonymous No.3268321]

>>3268314

This is not even fair, Evangelion 64 has almost 6th gen graphics.

[Anonymous No.3268363]

Although Crash Bandicoot is a very popular franchise, I feel it's kinda underrated on the basis of its actual gameplay. The main hype around it is just nostalgia from Sony kids who had a Playstation instead of a Nintendo back in the day.

However, the actual gameplay is very refined. It's the best example of an old-school platformer IMO, which after SM64, pretty much ceased to exist (besides shit like Klonoa or whatever)

The beauty of it is that it rewards player investment and completionism. The mechanics are simple to learn, but in the hands of someone who actually understands the mechanics of skid jumping and spin dashing etc they allow a quite high skill ceiling. It's also totally optional to go for the gems- You can play through start to finish in a few hours and not have too much difficulty. But if you want to 100% it, you have to step up your fucking game. In Crash 1 and 2 some of the gems are insanely challenging to get, and hidden in some really obscure ways- And then they allow you to access whole secret levels that are harder than the normal levels. It's brilliant, and I can't think of many games that do a similar thing.

So yeah that's my two cents. I've always preferred it to SM64 but I think it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. It'd be fairer to compare Spyro to SM64, and then I'm really not sure which comes out on top- Mario was highly innovative and the mechanics have a very high skill ceiling, but on the other hand, Spyro is a fucking work of art in terms of the graphics and soundtrack.

TL;DR all platformers are great really, why are they ded and we need more, stop arguing which is "best".

[Anonymous No.3268468]

>>3268294

I believe Mario was also made up of a bunch of separate limbs. You posting random gameplay from Mario 64 doesn't prove anything

[Anonymous No.3268475]

>>3268314
>>3268308
>>3268303

Still, most games from the 5th gen just had a flat face projected on to the model. Those are 3 other franchises that didn't, released much later.

[Anonymous No.3268476]

>>3268321
So?

[Anonymous No.3268481]

>>3268468
He literally bends his knees. Did you even watch the video?

[Anonymous No.3268484]

>>3268468
He literally bends his knees and ankles. Did you even watch the video?

[Anonymous No.3268558]

>>3268484

The video doesn't prove what I'm taliing about. The fact that a character can crouch doesn't mean that the thigh, shin and foot are connected, or the same mesh. Tomb Raider, for examplr, has wonderful animations for 1996, but her limbs are not connectef.

[Anonymous No.3268564]

>>3268558

talking about *

[Anonymous No.3268635]

>>3268225
All the other responses to this covered exactly what I was going to say. Crash's graphics are nothing short of absolutely ordinary for the time.

[Anonymous No.3268731]

>>3268635

Right, because contemporary games had textures and geometry even close to Crash.

[Anonymous No.3269508]

>you have lived enough to see hating classic Crash games becoming a trend

[Anonymous No.3269512]

>>3269508

It wouldn't happen if OP didn't start every single one of his shitty threads with Super Mario 64 comparisons, or claiming that Crash is "THE BEST GAME EVER".

Just make a normal Crash thread without a faggot OP and you will see less hate.

[Anonymous No.3269901]

>>3269512

Mario 64 threads start with even broader statements. We currently have a "name a better game" thread with a picture Mario 64 in the OP, followed by an ironic shitpost throwing Crash Bandicoot fans under the bus, when they're doing the exact same thing but worse.

[Anonymous No.3269910]

>>3261784
I don't think any of the crash games are even good

[Anonymous No.3270473]

>>3268731
Many contemporary games didn't confine your movements and camera to a corridor though.

It's one thing to have nice geometry and textures. It's another thing to have nice geometry and textures and still let you use the camera to look around the nice world.

[Anonymous No.3270636]

>>3269901
Mario 64 changed games forever, Crash retread common ground to maximize profit

What else is new

[Anonymous No.3271063]

>>3270636

What's new is that in hindsight, Mario 64 may have been the most innovative game, but particularly Crash Bandicoot 2 remains the more playable game.

You don't have to sacrifice playability for innovation, but a lot of games at that time did.

[Anonymous No.3271109]

>>3271063
Not him but you're implying SM64 isn't playable or something like that?

[Anonymous No.3271137]

>>3271109

Less playable. Don't look at issues in black and white.

[Anonymous No.3271138]

>>3271063
>Mario 64 may have been the most innovative game, but particularly Crash Bandicoot 2 remains the more playable game.
Imagine being this delusional.

[Anonymous No.3271154]

>>3271138

Smug and ad hominem is not an argument.

[Anonymous No.3271168]

>>3271138
Honestly I don't even think the two games can be compared. They're practically different genres and which one you prefer comes almost entirely down to a combination of personal taste and a hint of console war fanboyism.

[Anonymous No.3271169]

>>3271154
What argument did you make? All you did was state an opinion that clearly many people disagree with as a fact.

[Anonymous No.3271231]

>>3271169

Nobody is stating anything as fact here, hopefully from either side. You don't need to put "in my opinion" in front of every single controversial opinion.

[Anonymous No.3271269]

>>3271231
>Nobody is stating anything as fact here

Where do you think we are?

[Anonymous No.3273580]

>>3271269

Then you have to consider both sides as fact.

[Anonymous No.3273660]

>>3271137

Same shit, are you implying Crash is more playable than Mario 64? How? Crash has less mobility.

[Anonymous No.3273686]

>>3273660
Not to mention a fixed camera behind his ass, which makes judging depth incredibly difficult. ND really had no idea how to approach 3D game design. The Crash "tube" style was just a stopgap to allow the team to focus on wringing the most out of the PS1's primitive graphics rendering hardware. Crash looked great for its time, but the gameplay has always ranged from bland to frustrating

[Anonymous No.3273712]

>Crash is more playable than Super Mario 64
When did this meme become an actual opinion?

[Anonymous No.3273797]

>>3273712
Nice glitchy trash

[Anonymous No.3273803]

>>3273797
Where are you seeing a glitch in that webm?

[Anonymous No.3273804]

>>3273712
>that camera
>those controls

Let's see what it looks like when someone who hasn't played through the game 50 times over is playing it, shall we?

[Anonymous No.3273805]

>>3273797
Implying Crash isn't an absurdly glitchy game in its own right. Probably worse than SM64, honestly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-RaA3a9CZk

[Anonymous No.3273808]

>>3273804
They'll be bad because they're new to the game, which is how it should work. We call this a skill ceiling.

[Anonymous No.3273882]

>>3265784
>Donald Duck Goin' Quackers (an early shovelware PS2 game

Except Goin' Quackers was actually good, on every console it came out (each version did their own thing).

[Anonymous No.3274350]

>>3273808
>We call this a skill ceiling.
skill curve*

you're right though.

[Anonymous No.3274842]

>hatin on Crash
>or Mario
>or Donkey
>or even fucking Sonic for that matter

The fuck is wrong with you /vr/?

[Anonymous No.3274851]

>>3273805
M64 is so glitchy that it spawned memes with that shitty bug enemy and alternate dimensions.
It's broken and breeds autism.
Completely undefendable.

[Anonymous No.3274884]

>>3261784
Crash 3 was way better, especially because of the controls.

[Anonymous No.3274939]

>>3274851
none of those glitches are possible in real time with a controller though. they're TAS tricks.

[Anonymous No.3274948]

>crash
>not glitchy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZX7SQxc-fg

[Anonymous No.3274949]

>>3274851

Not him, and I know you're baiting, but it's the other way around, it's because of autism that the game can be broken to such magnitudes. You wouldn't be able to travel in quadruple parallel dimensions if you didn't knew the game's internal coding as that guy does. The game is not broken as it is. The problem with glitches in games isn't when people intentionally work to trigger them, but when they happen unintentionally, not the case of SM64. The reason people know this game so deeply is because it's one of the most technical games to speedrun.

[Anonymous No.3274973]

>>3265676
I think it might have something to do with how OP began his thread. Instead of saying hey let's discuss crash, he makes it more combative. Naturally this causes people who disagree to escalate into argument.

[Anonymous No.3275014]

>>3274973
And of course we couldn't just let this thread drop on page 10. That'd make too much sense.

[Anonymous No.3275086]

>>3274884

The controls are worse in Crash 3. Mid-air controls are far heavier, and just feel sluggish compared to Crash 2's which had the perfect acceleration for controlling Crash's jumps in mid-air.

And don't get me fucking started on those vehicle levels. They were all a chore between platform levels.

[Anonymous No.3275121]

>>3274842

Pro-Crash and Pro-Mario are both retarded manchildren who cannot fathom difference of opinion, and both pathetically state one is objectively better than the other. You usually see one being the first responder to a thread of the other.

[Anonymous No.3275124]

>>3275121

I agree, DK fans a best.
Sonic is on another level of autism.

[Anonymous No.3275142]

>>3275121
>>3275124
Growing up I owned a NES, a GB, a SNES and a PSX. My best friend owned a Master System, a Game Gear, a Genesis and a N64. Both of us loved our respective shit and the console wars bantz were real, but neither of us ever turned down the chance to have a bitchin afternoon full of vidya goodness at the other one's house. What I'm trying to say is that just like my friend and I, we've all pretty much had hours upon hours of fun with every single mascot out there. I just don't get the hate.

[Anonymous No.3275149]

>>3275121
I played and loved both. Mario 64 is objectively better.

[Anonymous No.3275173]

>>3261784
>that is a little secret if you didn't know.
>you can jump on polar bear to get some lives
The whole video is so pain to watch if you have actually played that game before. Full of obvious points and glory towards game saga.

[Anonymous No.3275185]

>>3268303
Banjo Kazooie and Mario 64 objectively look like trash graphically in comparison to Crash Bandicoot 2 and I'm not even one of these Crash Bandicoot dickriders and no, it doesn't have to do with PS1 vs N64.

[Anonymous No.3275187]

>>3274949
>Know it's bait
>Unironically reply explaining why M64 is not glitchy
autism

[Anonymous No.3275194]

>>3275185
>Banjo Kazooie and Mario 64 objectively look like trash graphically in comparison to Crash Bandicoot 2
Nope

[Anonymous No.3275202]

>>3275194
Yes. CB2 is great to look at. For me, the excellent gameplay of Banjo Kazooie is hindered by the dull graphics, which isn't a problem in CB2, though CB1 is more graphically comparable to the n64 titles. I've never been a Mario 64 fan but I like the gameplay of both Banjo Kazooie and Crash Bandicoot.

[Anonymous No.3275213]

>>3275202
If you prefer games with no draw distance, poor texture scaling and squash and stretch animation, that's your preference, not a fact. Fact is, Mario 64 and BK both have superior gameplay to the Crash series by virtue of their open-ended design and careful attention to platforming fundamentals like momentum and perception of depth. Visuals can't fix lazy design and programming, and Crash's were far from revolutionary - just good by PS1 standards.

[Anonymous No.3275261]

>>3275213
Good thing M64 and Banjo don't have good visuals, design or programming.

[Anonymous No.3275590]

>>3275261
So, you give up and admit you're wrong. Got it.

[Anonymous No.3275597]

Sleep tight dead franchise

[Anonymous No.3277034]

>>3275597

No.

[Anonymous No.3277052]

>>3275590
I'm glad we agreed that M64 was trash.

[Anonymous No.3277235]

>>3275213

Open levels being objectively better is just flat out wrong. The linear levels allowed more focused levels. What's annoying about all these open world platformers from the 90's is that they are too spread out with nothing, or sometimes they force you to tediously collect useless trinkets to proceed, something that is barely a necessity to complete a Crash game. Only Mario 64 and Spyro 2 somewhat get away with it for being a bit more fast paced than the others, such as Banjo and DK64.

People treat Crash Bandicoot as if it has zero momentum, when in reality it's just more rigid, or in my opinion more responsive than its contemporary rivals.

As far as depth perception goes, Crash's is totally fine, but if people really have problems with it, it's a tradition in 3D platformers to look at the shadow below the character to see where you will land.

Also, you can't really compare Crash and other platformers from the time when it comes to textures. Crash is miles ahead, and as far as texture scaling goes, that is only noticeable when you play the game in resolutions it wasn't made for. Banjo and Mario 64 have MUCH more primitive level geometry to UV map, so some inaccuracies are to be expected for 1996 UV mapping tools, but it was worth it. Crash Bandicoot was virtually the only 3D game series from that time that wasn't restricted to big, flat 45 degree polygons.

Squash and stretch is literally one of the 12 basic animation principles, so I don't know why you bring that up as a negative.

[Anonymous No.3277252]

>>3277235
>Spyro 2
Spyro 1 is a lot faster than Spyro 2 and has better levels.

[Anonymous No.3277281]

>>3277252

The low jumping during sprinting ruins it in Spyro 1.

[Anonymous No.3277291]

>>3265676
>Why all this sudden Crash Bandicoot hating lately?

That's merely a product of all the memeing that goes on this pitiful little board that barely anyone bothers posting in it. Oh wait, sorry, I should have said "it's a slow board".

[Anonymous No.3277381]

>>3277291
triggered little bitch

cry more you autistic nigger liberal

[Anonymous No.3277915]

>>3277235
If Crash had FMV environments which fast forwarded when you walked forward and rewinded when you moved backward it literally wouldn't have adversely affected the gameplay.

[Anonymous No.3278093]

>>3277915

Uh, depth perception? All interactive objects would be floating in mid-air, and you would have no clue where to go?

Funny, because that's exactly what Sega fanboys said about Crash's graphics before it came out.

[Anonymous No.3278101]

>>3265569
>Mario 64 was definitely far far more ambitious
That it was. It was also far more misguided in what it tried to do and be.

[Anonymous No.3278205]

>>3278101

In Mario's defense, that's very common with such ambitious games.

[Anonymous No.3278206]

No Crash "Poochie" Bandicoot has ever been good.

They were all shit.

[Anonymous No.3278215]

>>3277235
I didn't say open levels were "objectively better." I said Mario 64 and BK have superior design because they encourage emergent gameplay instead of forcing you down a tube like Crash.
>barely a necessity
You don't proceed if you don't collect those purple gems. In addition, you have a wide variety of other assorted gems to find, hundreds of fruit and crates in each level, and even more "useless trinkets" if you count relics and bonus stages - which are really just short levels centered entirely around collecting. It’s not impossible to design a linear game with emergent gameplay. Naughty Dog just failed or didn’t care enough to try.

>zero momentum
Rigid, momentumless - whatever you want to call it. Crash is stiff as a board and barely gains any jump distance from moving. “Rigid” and “more responsive” are not interchangeable terms. If you’re implying Mario 64 has less responsive controls than Crash, then maybe you just ate a lot of paint chips as a kid?

>depth perception
The shadow trick works even better in Mario 64, where you can position the camera to somewhere useful when you need to make a difficult jump. In Crash, your sightline is always obscured by an orange dog’s ass. Play any level with those rolling rocks and pit traps. Nine times out of ten you’ll miss that tiny circular platform or fall into a pit you couldn’t see because the camera is always tilted too far back.

>you can't really compare Crash and other platformers from the time when it comes to textures
Yes, I can. Crash’s textures were jittery and scaled into pixel vomit when viewed from far away. You can notice the PS1’s lackluster texture scaling and jittery polygons even in its intended resolution. Your bit about level geometry is complete rubbish, slopes don’t even fucking exist in Crash games.

The idea of the 12 principles is that you don’t over-rely on any one of them. BK had really nice, subtle stretching that didn’t utterly break the character model

[Anonymous No.3278223]

>>3278215
>The shadow trick works even better in Mario 64
using shadows to assist with depth perception was actually a concept first used in SM64.

>One unique challenge that the team encountered early on was related to depth perception, which the team remedied by provisioning a shadow directly beneath each object regardless of the area's lighting. Developer Yoshiaki Koizumi would go on to call this feature an "iron-clad necessity" which "might not be realistic, but it’s much easier to play."

[Anonymous No.3278224]

>>3278215
>>3278215
>The shadow trick works even better in Mario 64
using shadows to assist with depth perception was actually a concept introduced by SM64.

>One unique challenge that the team encountered early on was related to depth perception, which the team remedied by provisioning a shadow directly beneath each object regardless of the area's lighting. Developer Yoshiaki Koizumi would go on to call this feature an "iron-clad necessity" which "might not be realistic, but it’s much easier to play."

[Anonymous No.3278227]

>>3278215
>The shadow trick works even better in Mario 64
using shadows to assist with depth perception was actually a concept introduced by SM64.

>"One unique challenge that the team encountered early on was related to depth perception, which the team remedied by provisioning a shadow directly beneath each object regardless of the area's lighting. Developer Yoshiaki Koizumi would go on to call this feature an "iron-clad necessity" which "might not be realistic, but it’s much easier to play."

[Anonymous No.3279556]

I want Simpsons memes out.

[Anonymous No.3281142]

>>3278227

Well, there you go. Crashfags and Mariofags agree on something other than perpetual shitting on the other.

[Anonymous No.3281171]

>>3261784
Threads like this are sad, because Nintendrones are incapable of living with the fact that other people have opinions too. So every single thread is filled with assholes throwing tantrums and drawing comparisons, rather than anyone actually talking about or appreciating the game in question.

Seriously, Nintendo fags have the BIGGEST fucking hate boner for Crash I've ever fucking seen. And it's sad. Basically, it's like this:

>someone claims to like something other than what you like
>you get flustered and start raging and uber-posting hateful and spiteful babble about why they're wrong for not liking what you like
>expect to be taken seriously

How do they not get it?

Personally, I'll always say Crash 2 is a far superior platfoemer to Mario 64, but that's because it has gameplay elements that I like better. MArio 64 is still an enjoyable game and I get why people can like it more. Now how is it that NO Nintendo cuck alive can say anything like that? ever.

Fucking penis envy, more or less.

[Anonymous No.3281262]

>>3281171
The thread started with a direct comparison to Mario 64. I'm sorry you couldn't come up with a logical argument to prove why your game was better and had to rely on "your personal opinion" and direct attacks on an imaginary opposition to make yourself feel better. Nice work.

[Anonymous No.3282224]

>>3261784

Nintendo fan who tried Crash for the first time recently here.

It really is a great fucking game. Like 2D Mario and 2D Sonic, but in 3D, and the 3D matters.

But it certainly doesn't reel you in with its majesty like the world in Mario 64 do.

[Anonymous No.3282225]

I'll just leave this here

[Anonymous No.3282515]

>>3274948
Compared to Mario 64, that's practically bug free.

[Anonymous No.3282523]

>>3281171
I'm not even involved in this thread but I have to point out the humor in you complaining about tantrums in the midst of you yourself throwing a tantrum.

[Anonymous No.3282645]

>>3282515
really? what glitches are you aware of in super mario 64 that don't require tool assistance like in pannenkoek videos?

[Anonymous No.3282676]

Muh mmomy bought me a N64 so M64 iz tha best xD

[Anonymous No.3282678]

>>3282645

Not him, but I often get into a real fight with the camera. It tends to be the toughest enemy in the game.

May not qualify as a glitch, but it sure can't be intentional game design.

[Anonymous No.3282681]

>>3282676

Well, this applies to mostly every console. It's how console wars were born.

PS1 had cheaper games and could be modchipped to play burned copies, so often parents would opt for PS1 since it was cheaper than buying N64 games.

[Anonymous No.3282690]

Honestly why are you people so easily triggered by a signel autist?

The same fag made multiple threads on /v/ about crash being bad and falseflagging just for the sake of it, and guess what, he got downright ignored.
Why can't you do the same?

[Anonymous No.3282693]

>>3282225

You just can't look at Mario 64 and Crash Bandicoot side by side in 1996 and say that Mario 64 is the one that looks like a CG demonstration.

[Anonymous No.3282696]

>>3282690

Some people have good arguments against Crash Bandicoot, and those opinions I respect, even though I disagree with a lot of them.

Shitposters, however, are ignored.

[Anonymous No.3282701]

>>3282690

What's a signel autist?

[Anonymous No.3282702]

>>3282696
For example?

[Anonymous No.3282710]

>>3282701

[Anonymous No.3282713]

>>3282702

Shitposters?

[Anonymous No.3282714]

>>3282713
The good arguments you talked about

[Anonymous No.3282729]

>>3282714

Mario 64 being more innovative across the board, even though I don't think innovation alone dictates that one game is better than the other.

Mario 64 having much more freedom of movement, even though I think it was kind of detrimental to the graphics and pacing of the gameplay in 1996.

Mario 64 having more exploration, too. They way it was done in Mario 64 may have slightly diluted it from the platforming genre, but I would love to see some real exploration in a more compact, focused game like Crash. A less linear Crash that keeps the same pacing.

[Anonymous No.3282736]

>>3282678
I find the camera extremely easy to use. It's less intuitive to learn than most modern cameras, but it's very consistent with itself in how it works, and isn't that hard to figure out.

I honestly prefer it to many of the cameras other 5th gen 3d games had.

[Anonymous No.3282743]

Does Mario 64 have any flaw?

[Anonymous No.3282763]

Spyro was for me the right middle ground.

[Anonymous No.3282925]

>>3282743

What are you trying to get at by asking this?

[Anonymous No.3282931]

>>3282925
An answer

[Anonymous No.3283059]

>>3282931

If you read the thread, you would know that it does.

[Anonymous No.3283373]

>>3261784
sleep tight dead franchise

[Anonymous No.3283437]

>>3282693
You're right; "CG demonstrations" make terrible games.

[Anonymous No.3283680]

>>3283437

Which is why they said that about Mario 64?

[Anonymous No.3283703]

I always liked Crash and never owned a N64, but I'd say Mario 64 is objectively a better game than any Crash after playing M64 in the recent years. I still personally enjoy Crash more, but I ain't gonna shit on Mario 64.

[Anonymous No.3283793]

>>3283680
That's fair. I don't mean to say Crash is a terrible game. Just that valuing aesthetic over gameplay usually means the game is overall worse as a result. Magazine reviews have always been hyperbolic faff. Just because Mario 64 is an amazing game doesn't mean Crash isn't a good series.

[Anonymous No.3284630]

>>3283703

How is it "objectively better"?

[Anonymous No.3285584]

>>3284630
Read the thread

[Anonymous No.3287103]

bump

[Anonymous No.3287131]

>>3261784
That "game" sucked ass. faggot

[Anonymous No.3287196]

>>3287131

The game was great, nigger