/collectathon/

[Anonymous No.3963372]

This word is almost always used as one-word prepackaged criticism. What are some valid, objectively negative points about this style of game design, /vr/?

(Serious question; I'm sure there are plenty)

[Anonymous No.3963703]

>>3963372
There's nothing wrong with the concept if it's used as an incentive for gameplay as opposed to padding.

Examples of incentive based collectathon:

Spyro 1
Super Mario 64
Yoshi's Island


Examples of padding based collectathon:

Banjo Kazooie
DK64
Spyro 2 and 3.

[Anonymous No.3963707]

>>3963703
Mario 64 isn't a collectathon. The stars are just goalposts; they no different than the flags from SMB.

[Anonymous No.3963710]

Classic 2D platformers: tight focused level design, emphasis on difficult platforming, obstacles and threatening enemies.
Collectathon 3D platformers: here's a big area for you to wade through collecting whatevers, "difficulty" is just figuring out where everything is.

[Anonymous No.3963713]

>>3963707
>Mario 64 isn't a collectathon.
Are you retarded? It basically perfected the genre after Yoshi's Island defined it.

[Anonymous No.3963714]

>>3963372
It tends to replace interesting gameplay based around specific challenges with something that's really just a time sink as you wander around an environment just collecting. Obviously that appeals to some people or else games of the sort wouldn't have sold. But personally I find it incredibly boring.

[Anonymous No.3963716]

>>3963710
>"difficulty" is just figuring out where everything is.
Difficulty is creating a challenge for yourself instead of brainlessly doing exactly what is expected of you.

[Anonymous No.3963719]

>>3963716
I am not autistic.

[Anonymous No.3963723]

>>3963719
Sure you are, that's why you need developers to tell you how to have fun.

[Anonymous No.3963728]

>>3963716
That's not difficulty, that's just play. Difficulty is usually a preset challenge.

[Anonymous No.3963730]

>>3963728
>That's not difficulty
Looks difficult to me.
>Difficulty is usually a preset challenge.
Preset by whom, and what gives them authority over the player?

[Anonymous No.3963732]

>>3963713
As I said, the stars are just goalposts. Beyond that, the only other thing to "collect" is coins, and if they count then literally every single Mario game is a collectathon.

[Anonymous No.3963737]

>>3963732
>if they count then literally every single Mario game is a collectathon.
Which Mario game other than 64 and YI requires you to collect coins for 100% completion?

[Anonymous No.3963740]

>>3963732
You're taking the collectathon name way too literally. If you need to explore big open levels as opposed to go from point a to point b, game is a collectathon. Or at least pretty collectatonish.

[Anonymous No.3963742]

>>3963707
Y'know, I think you might have a point anon. When people think collectathons they think banjo kazooie and DK64. In Mario 64 there's a reason why you're kicked out of the level after collecting a star.

[Anonymous No.3963747]

>>3963723
Spergrunning is done under the constraints of the game mechanics as well. You're not as free as you think.

[Anonymous No.3963748]

>>3963730
>Preset by whom, and what gives them authority over the player?

The game designers, because they made the game. Not that you can't do fun or difficult things by playing on your own. Some of my favorite games are based around that.

But there's a difference between a game that's designed to be difficult just to play through and one where the player mostly sets their own goals and challenges.

That poster was simply pointing out that the challenges the game itself gives you are relatively easy and mostly comes down to looking everywhere.

[Anonymous No.3963751]

>>3963747
>the only self imposed challenge is speedrunning
lmao
>You're not as free as you think.
Depends on the game. Collectathons tend give you a ton of freedom. 2d platformers tend give you almost none.

[Anonymous No.3963756]

>>3963748
>The game designers, because they made the game.
That's absurd, though. That's like saying mods can't make Skyrim better because the developer didn't intend the game to be played that way.

[Anonymous No.3963764]

>>3963751
Scoring sucks and those who defend it are aspies.

[Anonymous No.3963770]

>>3963756
>That's like saying mods can't make Skyrim better because the developer didn't intend the game to be played that way.

No. It's not saying that in any way.

[Anonymous No.3963775]

>>3963770
>says the opposite thing
>doesn't substantiate it
oh wow, really convinced me there man.

[Anonymous No.3963776]

>>3963756
But mods take agency out of the dev's hands.

Mod developers become 'the devs' in this analogy.

The entire idea here is that a game's difficulty is set by the intentions of the developer. Yes you can impose challenges, but that isn't a GAME being difficult.

[Anonymous No.3963779]

>>3963776
>Yes you can impose challenges, but that isn't a GAME being difficult.
How isn't it? Remember, we're talking about the game that was released, not the game the developers wanted to make.

Most devs also intend their games to not be shit, but we all know it doesn't always work out that way.

[Anonymous No.3963783]

>>3963775
People modding Skyrim has almost nothing to do with what we're talking about. Yes people can change a game in any number of ways, but that's all after the fact.

Asking who sets the challenges and difficulty in a game, it's the game designers.

[Anonymous No.3963784]

>>3963779
Let's use a really simple example.

Let's say a game gives you 2 weapons. Weapon A is average, B is powerful. The game is balanced around you having these weapons.

If you want to not use B, the GAME has not jumped in difficulty. Your experience has, that's true - but it isn't because of anything that the game has done.

[Anonymous No.3963789]

>>3963372

Games designed around mindless bloat instead of quality contents.

[Anonymous No.3963791]

>>3963789
>holding right and jumping
>quality content
lmao

[Anonymous No.3963794]

>>3963784
>If a game has options for difficulty, the game's difficulty can only be measured by the easiest option.
Gonna have to disagree with you there.

[Anonymous No.3963795]

>>3963784 (me)

I think I fucked that anon up. Don't worry, I've saved their opinion

[Anonymous No.3963807]

>>3963794
Not him, but that's not the same thing. Choosing to not use a weapon the game gives you is different from choosing easy or hard. It's you imposing limits on yourself to make it more challenging or fun.

You can choose to play Mario without ever getting a power up so that it will be more challenging, but that's a challenge you are making for yourself as the player.

It really feels like you're going out of your way to not understand something pretty simple.

[Anonymous No.3963817]

>>3963794

Take your (You), dense motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.3963818]

>>3963807
>that's not the same thing.
Actually, it's exactly the same thing. The only distinction is that one set of options was intended by the developer as a way to variate challenge and the other set of options wasn't intended by the developer as a way to variate challenge.

And now we've gone full circle back to the "developer intention matters" nonsense.

[Anonymous No.3963821]

>>3963818
>The only distinction is that one set of options was intended by the developer as a way to variate challenge and the other set of options wasn't intended by the developer as a way to variate challenge.

Exactly. They're two different things. Developer intention does matter.

[Anonymous No.3963824]

>>3963818
>These two things that I list as different things are the same thing.

[Anonymous No.3963826]

>>3963824
I get what anon's getting at

He's saying that doing things within the game's limitations are not the same as modifying the game's limitations.

[Anonymous No.3963827]

>>3963821
>Developer intention does matter.
Not really. All that matters for the consumer is the game the developers make, not the game the developers wanted to make.
>>3963824
They are the same thing. The only difference is the authority you personally assign to the developers.

[Anonymous No.3963835]

>>3963827
>All that matters for the consumer is the game the developers make, not the game the developers wanted to make.

That's also beside the point. You asked who sets the challenges in a game. It's the developers. They made the game and put the challenges they wanted it to have into it.

The player making his or her own challenges from what the game allows is also possible, but different.

Do you have mental or social issues? Serious question. This whole conversation is surreal.

[Anonymous No.3963838]

>>3963372
Protip: DK64 was considered pretty good
Only since the recent wave of "N64 hasnt aged well" have people started hatin

[Anonymous No.3963839]

>>3963372
Starfox is a collectathon because you have to collect health and the checkpoint flags and bombs and power ups to make killing things easier. Even on solar a level designed around collecting things up.

But no one recognizes this for some reason, yet you're collecting things all through the route, you HAVE to again on solar and really if you dont the game is unbeatable so starfox is a collectathon

[Anonymous No.3963842]

>>3963835
>You asked who sets the challenges in a game. It's the developers. They made the game and put the challenges they wanted it to have into it.
So if a developer tries to make a hard game, but it turns out to be really easy, it's actually hard because they """"chose"""" to make it hard?

And if I make a shitty meal, it's actually a good meal, because I decided to make it good?

I'm not sure you understand how art works.

[Anonymous No.3963854]

>>3963842
>So if a developer tries to make a hard game, but it turns out to be really easy, it's actually hard because they """"chose"""" to make it hard?

What? No. Not at all. This is why I ask if you have mental problems.

This is just about inherent challenges that are designed to be part of the game versus challenges the player comes up with themsevles to make it more interesting for them. The two are different. Both potentially interesting and fun, but different.

>I'm not sure you understand how art works.
Also beside the point, but I know a fair bit about art thanks. It's my life. It pays all my bills these days.

[Anonymous No.3963860]

>>3963854
>This is just about inherent challenges that are designed to be part of the game versus challenges the player comes up with themsevles to make it more interesting for them.
They are different. One was intended and one wasn't. That's the difference. And they both can be used to measure the difficulty of a game.

This might not be the way the developer wanted the difficulty to be measured. Tough shit for him.

[Anonymous No.3963865]

>>3963854
not him, but are you retarded? the argument was never that those two things are distinctive. it's that once they're implemented the distinction doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.3963872]

>>3963860
>That's the difference.

That's one of them.

> And they both can be used to measure the difficulty of a game.

No. Beating Kirby without eating any enemies is harder, but it doesn't make Kirby a hard game. It makes it an easy game that you decided to make challenging for yourself.

[Anonymous No.3963874]

>>3963865
The distinction does matter though.

[Anonymous No.3963879]

>>3963874
no, it doesn't. if a dev appointed 'hard' mode in a game is easy, then it's an easy game, and vice versa. dev intention doesn't matter unless you personally appoint some kind of creepy omniscient authority to them.

[Anonymous No.3963882]

>>3963835
>>3963872
>>3963874
Difficulty is subjective you stupid faggot. Developers don't get to decide what someone else finds challenging.

[Anonymous No.3963886]

>>3963807
>Choosing to not use a weapon the game gives you is different from choosing easy or hard. It's you imposing limits on yourself to make it more challenging or fun.
How is choosing easy or hard in a game not imposing a limit on yourself to make it more challenging or fun?

Why are you calling that dude retarded when you're the one shifting the goalposts?

[Anonymous No.3963890]

>>3963879
It matters very much. There's a difference between playing a game the way it was designed and just beating the challenges put in place by the developer and altering the way you choose to play it so you can make your own challenges.

>>3963882
I didn't say it wasn't. This isn't about level of difficulty, it's difficulty inherent to a game vs difficulty made by the player.

[Anonymous No.3963895]

>>3963890
>it's difficulty inherent to a game vs difficulty made by the player.
So where do you draw the line? If it's an option in a menu it's inherent, but if it's an option in weapon choice it's made by the player? Why?

Couldn't you just argue that the developer intended the game to be harder with the shittier weapon, therefore it's an inherent challenge?

[Anonymous No.3963902]

>>3963886
Easy and hard mode are preset by the developer as opposed to something the player is choosing to do themselves.

This is as simple as it gets. If you honestly can't understand the difference between the two then continuing this discussion is pointless.

[Anonymous No.3963904]

>>3963714
Banjo and DK both have specific challenges needed to get their main collectibles (battling a boss, doing a timed puzzle, or completing a minigame). You can get the best ending to both games without getting all the optional extras that are simply around a level

[Anonymous No.3963907]

>>3963902
>If you honestly can't understand the difference between the two
Why do you keep repeating this when multiple people have already acknowledged that they're different and the fact that they're different was literally never in question?

[Anonymous No.3963919]

>>3963907
>the fact that they're different was literally never in question?

lol okay this has gone off the deep end. I don't know if you're purposefully being obtuse or are just legitimately this dense but this is clearly a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.3963923]

>>3963919
That's right, run away you dimwitted coward.

[Anonymous No.3963932]

>>3963923
bait/10

[Anonymous No.3963938]

>>3963710
basically this

[Anonymous No.3964094]

>>3963710

/thread

[Anonymous No.3964114]

>>3963710
Classic 2d platformers: hold right and jump
Collectathon 3d platformers: actual movement mechanics with variety, depth, and freedom.

[Anonymous No.3964157]

>>3964114
lol

[Anonymous No.3964217]

>>3964114
Go to bed Miyamoto, no one wants your 3D crap.

[Anonymous No.3964242]

>>3964114
Freedom isn't inherently good by itself. Being restricted isn't inherently bad by itself.

[Anonymous No.3964263]

>>3964242
>Freedom isn't inherently good by itself.
Yeah, it's almost like the guy you're responding to mentioned other qualities too.

[Anonymous No.3964680]

>>3963732
>As I said, the stars are just goalposts.
You need to collect stars to unlock doors in the castle and you need at least 70 to reach the final level without exploits.

SM64 is unquestionably a collectathon.

[Anonymous No.3964684]

>>3963710
Nailed it.

[Anonymous No.3964690]

>>3964680
And if you don't cheat via warp pipes, you need to clear every stage before the final level of SMB to progress.

[Anonymous No.3964691]

>>3963710

collectathons are more about exploration and playing around in a big world than a to b platforming

[Anonymous No.3964718]

>>3964691
This is why I consider the whole Super Mario 64 not being a collectathon thing so absurd. Collectathons are just a simple way to call those 3D exploration adventures with platformer elements that were all over the place during 5th gen, and that's literally what Super Mario 64 is. The Donkey Kong Country series is full of collectibles but they're not collectathons.

[Anonymous No.3964865]

>>3963716
Posting a webm of something no one does their first time.

Creating challenges is done for people that have already completed the game since they already know what to expect from level design and monster design along with being familiar enough with the mechanics to have beaten the game once.

[Anonymous No.3964883]

>>3964865
when did anyone here disagree with any of what you just said

[Anonymous No.3964903]

>>3964680

SM64's setup is the same concept (beat x levels to beat the game), just less linear in that you can do levels in whatever order.

[Anonymous No.3964932]

>>3964903
>beat x levels to beat the game
yes, and you beat levels by collecting things. that's what collectathon means.

[Anonymous No.3964952]

>>3964718
But Mario 64 had the collection elements based around mastery of the joyful controls in the confines of small, individual stages.

DK64 has sprawling worlds you have to backtrack over as each Kong. There is no challenge to the banana collection other than trawling the level to find where they are, nor is there any challenge present because the platforming is nearly non-existent and the enemies are just set dressing. The game just isn't that good in terms of gameplay unless you enjoy "walking around a lot".

[Anonymous No.3965042]

thing is even if a collectathon hasn't been made in a while, there still are the prime elements of a collectathon in many games today.
Open world games (Ubisoft games for example) are often roaming fetch quests with hidden collectables scattered throughout the world. Some like Assassin Creed (or Sucker Punch's Infamous) even do a variant of platforming.
Now the genre itself is mostly plauged with complaints of backtracking. Not only is it boring paddding, but also traveling from point A to point B is also the more boring part of it.
>>3963707
Mario 64 is indeed a collectathon. Your main objective in the levels and in the game is collection of stars and coins.

[Anonymous No.3965061]

Let me ask you this: If DK64 DID NOT REQUIRE you to be other characters to collect items, and allowed the played to grab anything with anyone, would it still be considered bad design?

[Anonymous No.3965064]

>>3963839
are you being facetious? You aren't required to collect a thing to beat Starfox 64.

[Anonymous No.3965258]

>>3964690
>And if you don't cheat via warp pipes, you need to clear every stage before the final level of SMB to progress.
You don't need to collect trinkets to beat SMB. You can collect as many or as few coins and power ups as you wish and still beat the game. Meanwhile, with SM64, you NEED to collect at least 70 trinkets to beat the game.

[Anonymous No.3965268]

>>3965258
Sure you do. You need to collect the flags at the end of the level. Those flags are just as much of an level's ending point as SM64's stars.

[Anonymous No.3965274]

>>3965268
You're really grasping for straws. There's nothing in SMB that counts how many flagpoles you've touched.

[Anonymous No.3965325]

>ctrl+f Jet Force Gemini
>0 hits

Jet Force Gemini was a game where you reunite with your friends and fight off an intergalactic genocidal insect warlord, who then proceeds to hijack an asteroid to ram it into Earth in one final act of butthurt, and there is only 1 intact ship left in the whole solar system that can help you get to the asteroid to stop him.

And with that momentum built up, it crashes to a halt because you can't beat the game until you go back to every previous level and collect 150 Jinjos or whatever the fuck.

That was the absolute worst.

[Anonymous No.3965353]

>>3965274
>nothing in SMB that counts how many flagpoles you've touched

How is that relevant? The point is that stars as an endpoint to a SM64 level is analogous to the flagpoles at the end of a SMB level. Whether or not the game shows a number indicating how many of these goals you reached doesn't change that.

The star count is essentially a count of how many levels you've completed. The only real difference from SMB is that you have a lot more freedom to complete the levels in whatever order you choose.

>But you can use the same argument for DK64 and their golden bananas, but everyone calls THAT a collectathon!

DK64 earns the collectathon moniker for other reasons.

It's been a while since I've played DK64, but IIRC your exploration of an area doesn't end once you've collected a banana, and there are also several entry points into every "level" area that isn't a part of the hub world. In SM64, depending on what star you choose to go for, you always have the same starting point, maybe some alterations to the level, and you're immediately removed from the area as soon as you collect the star.

Furthermore, you're not just collecting golden bananas; you're also collecting blueprints, banana medals, and those battle arena crowns, which can be collected in any order at any time, and aren't goals in of themselves.

[Anonymous No.3965382]

>>3965353
Exactly. In smb 3, several overworld maps will fork, meaning that the collection of all flags is optional. In fact, world 1 has two whole stages that are completely optional.

To beat mario 64 you can technically skip 7 entire worlds.

If sm64 is a collectathon then so is smb3.

[Anonymous No.3965421]

>>3965382
Sure. My point is that SM64 is not a collectathon, and I would say the same for SMB3. This is because the emphasis is fundamentally still on reaching a focused endpoint.

I bring up DK64 to exemplify what a collectathon actually is, and to point out that the level structure is much more open ended. While you had big open areas to explore in SM64, this exploration was much more focused as you had one specific goal; the star you choose to seek out upon entry into the area. Wheras in DK64, not only were you trying to find the golden banana(s), but along the way you had other types of collectibles that were almost mandatory to completion of the game.

I'd even argue that DK64 is more like a 3D Metroidvania due to areas being blocked off due to not having specific special abilities to overcome their obstacles, but that's a whole different discussion in of itself.

[Anonymous No.3965607]

>>3965353
>>3965382
Nono. In Mario 64 there are a limited number of main collectables, the stars. The game tracks your progress via how many of these stars you have collected. It may ACT as a flagpole for the mechanic of game progression, but in all meanings it is not. You could collect any star and it would increase your star count all the same, allowing for equal progression through the game. In Mario 3 there is one goal per level. Hell, even if you want to count the multiple paths in Mario World, you are still talking about different paths and still moving from A to B.
But the primary element of platformer collectathons that separate them from normal platformers is the nature of the collectibles themselves. Notice how in Banjo, DK, Mario they track not just your number of collectibles collected out of all that exist. In Mario 3, there's never a max score, never a max coin count or item count. You only collect coins and consumable items, neither of which give you any game progression but only a boost or ease the challenge.

[Anonymous No.3966060]

>>3965607
The number of stars per level and the linearity are the only differences. Mario 64 is much, much less linear but the stars are still functionally identical to flagpoles.

The fact that there is no visible max flagpole count in smb3 is irrelevant. You can still reach a state whereby you have played and completed all the levels. Just watch a 100% speedrun. How do you think they arrive at that criteria?

Im guessing there are 90 stages in smb3. You probably need to beat 75 of them. Just because the format this information is displayed in is different to sm64, dont let it confuse you. Sm64 is much less linear as i said. You must collect one star from bbb and one from ddd later in the game but otherwise its completely open.

Not explicitly having a flagpole count doesnt mean you dont need to collect at least a certain number of flagpoles to be allowed into the next world.

[Anonymous No.3966078]

>>3964952
Both are about wandering in a big ass stage (as opposed to going from point A to point B), SM64 still requires you to explore the level to find or even complete your tasks. Only real difference from Banjo and the likes is the ammount of collectibles, but collectibles don't make a collectathon by themselves. You need to break all the boxes to collect gems in Crash, but no sane mind would put it in the same category than DK64. Collectathon = 3D action adventure/platformer with focus on exploration and non linearity. Nothing more.
>but why is it called collectathon then?
Because most of them were made by Rare and Rare was obssesed with collectibles long before the genre even existed.

[Anonymous No.3966121]

I know the words. Can I join in too?

[Anonymous No.3966202]

There really is no such thing as a collectathon. It's impossible to accurately articulate what a collectathon is while confining that definition to a limited number of games.

What it really is, as OP suggested, is a prepackaged term of disparagement used for a breed of late 90s 3D games which involved cute characters and jumping.

Odds are that if the game is:
1) 3D
2) Stars a cartoon character
3) Involves jumping
Then SOMEBODY out there will try to argue that it's a collectathon. There's absolutely no attempted (honest) delimiting of actual game mechanics.

The reason the delimiting of game mechanics is usually dishonest is because the disparaging element inherent in the term "collectathon" is an implication that the game contains no game mechanics other than aimless walking, (very simple) jumping and pointless collecting. Which, of course, is not true for any of those games.

In summary, collectathon is just a strawman term.

[Anonymous No.3966223]

>>3965064
>Solar
>literally a level where you have to collect health to beat it
Are YOU being facetious?

[Anonymous No.3966246]

>>3966223
>collecting health makes a game a collectathon
i guess a lot of games are collectathons then lmao.

[Anonymous No.3966253]

>>3966223
collecting health doesn't make a game a collectathon.

[Anonymous No.3966257]

>>3966253
>collecting health doesn't make a game a collectathon.

Not that guy, I'm this guy >>3966202

This kind of goes down to my complaint that the term "collectathon" isn't actually about gameplay mechanics, but about context/subject matter.

For example, a game where you have to go around collecting cutesy golden medallions by walking on top of them would be called a collecathon, but a game where you have to collect "kills" by approaching a victim and pressing a button wouldn't be considered a collectathon despite the game structure and mechanics essentially being the same. Just because the former is related to cutesy platforming "tropes" and the latter isn't.

Much in the same way, you can't delimit collectathons by context/subject matter (e.g. collecting "health" instead of collecting say, thermometers), but only by game mechanics if you truly want to be honest.

[Anonymous No.3966259]

>>3964114
Is this guy for real?

[Anonymous No.3966260]

>>3966259
You've never played a 2d platformer before? You can literally only move sideways, it's fucking boring.

[Anonymous No.3966420]

>>3963737

100% completion implies collecting everything

You can speedrun SM64 in like 2 hours if you're so inclined

[Anonymous No.3966642]

>>3966420
>100% completion implies collecting everything
Everything that the game keeps track of, yes. Mario games earlier than Yoshi's Island don't track your progress outside of stage completion.
>You can speedrun SM64 in like 2 hours if you're so inclined
What does that have to do with anything?

[Anonymous No.3966854]

>>3963714
What the fuck are you smoking?

Collectathons have interesting gameplay and specific challenges are much or more than any other genre.

Get the hell out of here idiot.

[Anonymous No.3966865]

>>3966854
Wow you sound upset. OP asked why the genre is considered shitty so people told him. No need to have a meltdown over it.

[Anonymous No.3966875]

Collectathons died for a reason (because they're a shit genre), while hardcore platformers live on in the doujin/indie scene. Thus, action platformers are superior to insipid collectathons.

Inb4 you bring up trash like Yooka Laylee to argue otherwise. KEK.

[Anonymous No.3966898]

>>3966875
The only good indie platformer is Dustforce, and that's because it expands on concepts that made 3d platforming good by embracing movement tech and speedrunning.

Fangames and the like are laughably terrible

[Anonymous No.3966927]

The problem with collectathons is that they came about as a result of the limited memory of the N64. If the 64DD had been a success, we could well have seen some amazing, fully-fledged games; a complete Ocarina of Time, Fire Emblem 64, and of course Earthbound 64. The limited memory of the N64 however meant that they had to pad out the lengths of games considerably, otherwise many games would be relatively short (and most were regardless, anyway). The problem really is that they attempted to make up for this too much by padding to extreme lengths, such as DK64, in order to artificial extent the game and make you feel like you were getting your money's worth. The irony of the whole thing is that shorter games, such as Star Fox 64 and F-Zero X, were still ultimately the most enjoyable because they had brevity to them, and provided a unique experience which didn't wear thin easily.

A collectathon was a product of its era, therefore, and not really something to aspire to be, something which I think a lot of truly realised after the mediocre response to Yooka-Laylee came out.

[Anonymous No.3966950]

>>3966927
>shorter games, such as Star Fox 64 and F-Zero X
Have you ever actually tried to 100% either of these games? It takes considerably longer than getting 100% in any N64 collectathon. Neither game is short, especially not F-zero.

[Anonymous No.3966963]

>>3966898
>concepts that made 3d platforming good by embracing movement tech and speedrunning.

This is supposed to be a joke, right?

[Anonymous No.3966970]

>>3966963
No, why would it be? 3d platformers have objectively more depth and complexity in movement than 2d platformers. That's why they're so much better for speedrunning.

Dustforce devs just decided to make a 2d platformer with actual movement tech and designed it around speedrunning.

[Anonymous No.3966975]

>>3966970
You say you're serious but then you keep talking about speedrunning. Bait or not is hard to tell.

[Anonymous No.3966976]

>>3966975
You keep saying words and then neglect to substantiate them with anything. I'm serious, but It's easy to tell that you're shitposting.

[Anonymous No.3966982]

>>3966976
You're the one talking positively about speedrunning influencing games... My questioning you championing something almost universally despised is shitposting now? What the fuck happened to /vr/?

[Anonymous No.3966993]

>>3966982
>You're the one talking positively about speedrunning influencing games
Yes, I am. I pointed out that the best indie platformer in existence was positively inspired by speedrunning.
>something almost universally despised
No, you're mistaken. Most people don't care. The people who are genuinely bothered by speedrunning tend to be more autistic than actual speedrunners, so their thoughts and beliefs can be discarded.

[Anonymous No.3966998]

>>3966993
>The people who are genuinely bothered by speedrunning tend to be more autistic than actual speedrunners

whatever you say /v/

[Anonymous No.3967008]

>>3966998
>Narcissa
>one example of someone who isn't even a speedrunner anymore
lmao

[Anonymous No.3967009]

>>3966993
>being bothered by how other people play games
yeah, doesn't get much more autistic than that.

[Anonymous No.3967045]

>>3966223
>Solar
>Starfox = starfox 64
hmmm, going to disagree there.
In all seriousness, health collection in Solar is a stage gimmick.
In SM64 to actually beat the game you HAVE to collect stars, in SF the only thing you must collect, once in a gameplay i must say, some health to survive an alternate route you CHOSE.
See what i mean?
Collectathons are games where to beat the game (that have no alternate routes by definition!) you MUST collect things, in SF you DON'T have to beat every level in your route because... well, you can't, that's how the game works. you can avoid Solar in SF but you can't avoid stars in SM64.

[Anonymous No.3967046]

>>3963740
Zelda's a collectathon?

Metroid?

'k

[Anonymous No.3967050]

>>3967046
>Metroid?
Metroid 2 can actually be considered a collectathon.

[Anonymous No.3967052]

>>3967045
Also, Star Fox isn't a platformer. Collectathon is a sub-genre of platformer.
>>3967046
Collectathons are a type of platformer, just like Metroidvanias are.

Zelda isn't a platformer.

[Anonymous No.3967215]

A collectathon is a game that requires a large amount of abstracted collecting.

What is abstracted collecting? It's gathering collectibles for purpose that isn't immediately tied to your progression. Collecting Jiggies in Banjo-Kazooie isn't abstracted collection because that's basically the overarching goal of the game. However, the note doors (Which are required to open up new areas, but the actual levels are behind ANOTHER locked door, this one requiring jiggies.) definitely are. Also the last one requires over 800 notes, which I think is at least 80% of all the notes in the game, which is absurd. And really goes to show how easy it is for a developer to let things get out of hand at that level of abstraction.

Basically it's like this. Yoshi's Island (Which was mentioned previously in this thread.) has collectibles but isn't a collectathon, since none of that shit is necessary. SM64 is an edge case (It has collectibles and levels that are locked behind gates but they don't intersect in quite the same way as real collectathons.) Pretty much all the rare platformers (At least in the N64 era. I've never played Nuts & Bolts, Star Fox Adventures, or Grabbed by the Ghoulies.) are collectathons.

[Anonymous No.3967236]

>>3964883
Due to playing the game the first time the difficulty would be finding the items since you cannot knowledgeably create your own challenges in a game you have yet experienced to completion.
>>3966223
You're being autistic.

[Anonymous No.3968110]

>>3967215
That's not a very finite definition. A collectathon is a platformer game that requires you to collect a set number items to progress through the game.
Notice the biggest thing here is a set number of items. While in Super Mario you have coins to collect, the collection of coins does not determine your progression through the game. Furthermore, there is no limit to the coins you can collect, it is infinite. In Banjo, there is a finite number of Jiggys, notes, etc. In Mario Sunshine, there is a finite number of Shines, blue coins, etc. Notes, Jiggies, and Shines are all needed to advance the game, unlike Super Mario Bros where your objective is to merely reach the goal.

[Anonymous No.3968128]

>>3966060
But the point is progression is tracked by the number of items you have collected. Regardless of how many Mario 3 stages need to be beat or how many stars need to be collected, it is the nature of clearing the objective that is part of the meaning of a collectathon. You can sum up the objective of Mario 3 levels by "get to the goal" while Mario 64 you can sum up as "collect the star". Mario 3 has the goal, but it's not just the fact it's a goalpost, it's also that it is the mark of the end of a linear level. Mario 64 has no linearity in each individual level.
Also in Mario 64 you progress through the game by having X number of stars collected. While the order of completion is negligible, you cannot 100% freely choose which levels you beat in Mario 3 to progress. While there may be branching paths, you HAVE to beat a particular preset order of levels to continue in the game, where a collectathon doesn't have that. I can get 6 jiggies in Mumbo's mountain and 10 in Treasure Trove Cove, or I can get 9 in Mumbo's and 7 in Treasure; I'm not made to collect specific jiggies to progress.

[Anonymous No.3968132]

Here is what makes a collectathon.
>Platformer
>Main objective is collecting objects, needed for level/game progression
>Levels do not have an "end goal", rather are open world/sandbox and end either when items are collected or only end when level is left voluntarily

[Anonymous No.3968149]

>>3965353
>How is that relevant?
Because it's the fundamental difference between collectathons and all other platformers. The entire subgenre of collectathon is built upon "acquire X amount of McGuffin to progress."

Are you even aware of what you're trying to defend? It seems not.

[Anonymous No.3968237]

Who said collectathons have to be platformers specifically?

[Anonymous No.3968275]

>>3963742
i always imagined human kazooie flatchested. that's why she always has such a chip on her shoulder

[Anonymous No.3968283]

>>3968275

[Anonymous No.3968287]

>>3968283
this is gay

[Anonymous No.3968339]

>>3968287
ur gey

[Anonymous No.3968340]

>>3963716
>Difficulty is creating a challenge for yourself instead of brainlessly doing exactly what is expected of you.
A game's difficulty is determined by its highest reward. There is no reward for self-imposed challenges so they cannot be used to judge a game's difficulty. Super Mario 64 does not reward you for using the techniques seen in your webm and 2D Mario and Kirby games do not reward you for not using certain power-ups as previously mentioned. Super Mario 64 is a superbly designed game but not by your reasoning. Super Mario 64 is great because it rewards the player for navigating levels designed around in-depth movement mechanics. A great 2D platformer rewards you for navigating areas with tightly focused level design requiring difficult platforming around obstacles and threatening enemies. Other 3D platformers like Banjo Kazooie and Donkey Kong 64 reward you for challenges not related to platforming which is why collectathons are despised in the first place.

[Anonymous No.3968409]

>>3963839
>>3966223
You've never played StarFox 64, have you? Only watched playthroughs, or are just shit at the game. The temperatures won't kill you in Solar, only drain your ship's HP to minimum to the point where a single hit will kill you. You don't NEED to collect health. You just need to gid gud. Solar is one of the easiest levels in the game despite the heat mechanic.

I'm afraid I can't take you seriously because this clearly shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.3968454]

>>3966253
>collect shit constantly throughout the game
>LOL not a collectathon
what even?

>>3967045
And if you want to entirely beat the game you HAVE to collect health in Solar, the whole game is about picking up shit along the way

>>3967236
Sure showed me with your super good argument

>>3968409
Yes I've played the game so your argument is invalid, come back later when you have something to say.

[Anonymous No.3968458]

>>3968454
You can't just say "Your argument is invalid" when people call you out on your shit and expect people to suddenly believe you, you know.

[Anonymous No.3968463]

>>3968454
Please see >>3968110
The rings, smart bombs, and laser upgrades are not a set or "collection", they are consumable items and temporary upgrades that enhance the player, and is not an element of a collectathon.
Now if there were 50 radio transceivers in each level you collect as you go and require to get a set amount to progress then that would make it more a collectathon.

[Anonymous No.3968474]

doom and quake are fragathons

all you do in those games is wander around and mindlessly shoot things

[Anonymous No.3968483]

>>3968463
>The rings, smart bombs, and laser upgrades are not a set or "collection"
Collect 3 golds back to back and you get an extra life, bombs persist all game, as do laser upgrades as long as you don't die or lose a wing. So...yes they are a set collection.

>>3968458
Yes, I can, because his argument is invalid lol, I played the game.

[Anonymous No.3968491]

>>3968483
>consumables
>expiring powerups
>collectables
>in a game where the point isn't to collect
these are not collectathon collectibles. Those are powerups. Next you're going to tell me Galiga is a collectathon.

[Anonymous No.3968493]

>>3968491
>have to collect them to beat the game
>persist level to level
>not collectables
What? Why are you so dumb?

[Anonymous No.3968496]

Every game is a collectable, you collect Lives and Points and other items.

[Anonymous No.3968501]

>>3968493
A. We keep telling you that you are indeed not required to collect them to progress. Because progression in the game isn't based on collecting, that alone means it is not a platformer.
B. Consumable items and powerups are not commectables. Notice in DK64 when people refer to collectables, they refer to bananas, fairies, blueprints. They do not refer to melons, ammo, crystal coconuts, etc because they are all consumable usable items.
If that's the case might as well make Pokemon a collectathon because lol you need to collect Pokeballs to collect Pokemon, or there are only so many Elixers in the game to collect.
It just doesn't work that way. Obtaining=/= collecting.

[Anonymous No.3968503]

>>3968501
Well you don't even need to collect anything in banjo kazooie just use a cheat engine to get past all the doors.

See how retarded this argument is? Of course you're going to collect the things, they're both games about collectables.

[Anonymous No.3968505]

>>3968503
>cheating
Then you're not even playing the game the way it was designed for at that point.
Don't lie to me, you're just baiting me aren't you?

[Anonymous No.3968508]

>>3968505
Of course, why would anyone think Star Fox is a collectathon lol.

Dumbest shit I've thought up.

[Anonymous No.3968559]

>>3967236
Which authority decided that the difficulty has to happen on your first playthrough?

[Anonymous No.3968562]

>>3968340
>There is no reward for self-imposed challenges
The reward is fun and personal satisfaction, just like every game. No game has ever given you an actual reward you fucking dunce lmao.

[Anonymous No.3968564]

>>3968340
>There is no reward for self-imposed challenges
The reward is fun and personal satisfaction, just like for every challenge in every game.

No game has ever given you a meaningful reward you fucking dunce. People play games to set off a dopamine reaction in their brains.

[Anonymous No.3968641]

>>3968564
>still missing the point this hard

[Anonymous No.3968645]

>>3968641
The point they're trying to make is that the developers have some kind of arbitrary and omniscient authority on how people play their games, which is obviously nonsense. Any "reward" a game can offer is subjective and abstract.

The only things that actually matter in a game are what you can do and what you can't do.

[Anonymous No.3968679]

>>3963372
HE

[Anonymous No.3968816]

>>3968645
No, that's not the point, actually. You're confusing developers serving some kind of authority with simply the objective of the game. Let's apply this to soccer/football; the objective of the game is to score the most goals. You could "create a challenge" and play the game so the ball never touches the ground. Does that require skill? Yes. Could that provide added fun and satisfaction? Yes. Do you get rewarded for it? No. Soccer is a game enjoyed by many obviously and is difficult, but again, not for that reason. Nothing is stopping you from creating that challenge within the rules of the game and what is possible, but that's not why people find it fun. You don't see professional players, no matter how good, create self-imposed challenges because it strays away from the objective, which is my point. You could argue that a team sport is too different but really this applies to anything that can be considered a game.

It is not arbitrary and has nothing to do with "brainlessly doing what is expected of you". It's about how the game is set up, its objectives, the abilities it gives you, and how it's designed so that it rewards you for utilizing your abilities skillfully.

[Anonymous No.3968818]

>>3968816
>Do you get rewarded for it? No.
Sure you you do, unless you're playing with other people.
H-have you ever played a single player game anon?

[Anonymous No.3968828]

>>3968818
I play single player games and often set self-imposed challenges for myself, but I don't act like it dictates the quality or difficulty of a game. That challenge is something I created; it is my own difficulty and fun, not the game's.

[Anonymous No.3968840]

>>3968816
>Let's apply this to soccer/football
Sure, I can do that.

The rules for soccer are dictated by the enthusiasts; the players, the fans. They're not dictated by the people who manufacture the ball.

>You don't see professional players, no matter how good, create self-imposed challenges
Sports literally are self-imposed challenges. Some are more popular than others, obviously, but there is no actual centralized authority on how sports work. You play them the way you want to, and you play with other people who agree to play them that way.

[Anonymous No.3968850]

>>3968237
>tfw I will never beat the fucking dragon boss.

[Anonymous No.3968852]

>>3968474
Those are shit games indeed.

[Anonymous No.3968902]

>>3968645
It's a game. Playing the game means overcoming it's inherent challenges. If you take 5 rubix cubes and juggle them, that would challenging but it has nothing to do with beating the inherent challenge of a rubix cube. Not because of some "omniscient authority", because aligning the correct colours is the point of the game of a rubix cube.

[Anonymous No.3968912]

>>3968840
>The rules for soccer are dictated by the enthusiasts; the players, the fans.

False.

[Anonymous No.3968920]

>>3968840
>The rules for soccer are dictated by the enthusiasts; the players, the fans

get out

[Anonymous No.3968923]

>>3968902
>If you take 5 rubix cubes and juggle them, that would challenging but it has nothing to do with beating the inherent challenge of a rubix cube.
This analogy is bad because you can use any object to juggle, you don't need a rubix cube. Obviously juggling is not inherent to the function of a rubix cube.

If you want to get into the whomps fortress cage without the owl, you need to have a copy of SM64. There is no other context in which this challenge is possible. Getting into the whomps fortress cage without the owl is a challenge inherent to SM64.

[Anonymous No.3968929]

>>3968912
FUCK YOU. I'm the best at Chess because I can throw the pieces further than anyone else I know. Don't fucking tell me what rules to use when playing a game. It's my game, my rules, my challenge. You're not the global Chess authority asshole.

[Anonymous No.3968930]

>>3968912
>>3968920
So you're saying the rules for soccer weren't invented by soccer players?

[Anonymous No.3968934]

>>3968920
Don't you watch sports at all? Before any big game all the players meet up and vote on what rules to follow for that match. Why else do you think soccer causes so many riots? Sometimes they pick one set or rules, sometimes another.

[Anonymous No.3968937]

>>3968934
>Before any big game all the players meet up and vote on what rules to follow for that match.
That's not quite how it works.

By choosing to play in a league, you're agreeing to abide by the rules presented by the league. If you disagree with the rules, you're free to create your own league. The ball manufacturer has no say in the matter.

[Anonymous No.3968950]

>>3968937
>game creators are to games what ball manufacturers are to soccer

you're an imbecile, stop posting

[Anonymous No.3968957]

>>3968950
>game creators are to games what ball manufacturers are to soccer
Essentially this is accurate.

Game developers give you the tools to play with. The manner in which they are played with is the decision of the player.

[Anonymous No.3969056]

>>3968850
The trick to many Diddy Kong bosses is you can't give up if you're a little behind early on, you can still catch up.

[Anonymous No.3969140]

mario 64 is a 3d collectathon with great controls/physics.
the worlds themselves are very basic and stars were mostly placed as a finish line rather than a reward.

banjo kazooie takes the same game idea but puts more detail in the worlds and makes the jiggies(stars) all available in a world simultaneously. jiggies are rewards.

banjo tooie takes bk but with a mindset that bigger is better. more minigames and bigger worlds. there's less notes to collect per world however (17 instead of 100). a large portion of jiggies need backtracking and cross-world exploration, so you can't just walk into a world and 100% it.

donkey kong 64 feels like it killed the genre. 5 playable characters and 500 colored bananas(notes) per world. while the colored bananas do have bundles, they're color coded to only be picked up by a certain character. there's 5 golden bananas(stars) per character, making it 25 per world. due to the number of golden bananas per world, mini-game barrels were placed when they couldn't place a proper challenge inside the level. even if you really like collectathons, this game feels like a chore.

i'd love to hear about ps1 collectathons. i'm also running through yooka layee and its like a cross between tooie and dk64 unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.3969149]

>>3969140
>i'd love to hear about ps1 collectathons.
Spyro is the big one.

I honestly think the two best collectathons ever made are SM64 and Spyro 1.

[Anonymous No.3969225]

>>3969149
spyro isn't even worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as SM64

it's a b-grade platformer that should be categorized with gex and croc

[Anonymous No.3969234]

Collectathon should be an explicitly negative connotation, referring to games with an over-reliance on collecting items. Most games involve you collecting something, but a collectathon specifically would be a game where the overabundant collecting causes the player to have less fun.

Some nuance is required. I had fun all the way through Mario 64 so I'm less inclined to call it a collectathon than someone who may have had a very un-fun time doing red coin missions. In DK64 I did not have fun with the process of collecting bananas to open boss doors, so I strongly consider it a collectathon. Jet Force Jemini's Tribal collecting was terribly un-fun, and I did not finish the game because of it.

[Anonymous No.3969248]

>>3969140
>i'd love to hear about ps1 collectathons
Well there's Ape Escape.
And...
Uh...

[Anonymous No.3969251]

>>3969234
>Jet Force Jemini's Tribal collecting was terribly un-fun, and I did not finish the game because of it.
But...there's literally nothing to it. Most of the Tribals you have to collect in each level are all standing in pretty much the same spot. And each level will have like 3 spots at most.

It's basically a hostage rescue segment that requires 100% success. I don't consider it very hard though, but if you do I guess you need to git gud.

I get the a feeling a lot of people unfairly shit on it because they get half way through the game and are told they have to play through the levels again and they think "ugh what a chore" because they struggled to get that far due to being bad players. For me? I relished the opportunity to play the levels again but more skillfully, with better equipment, and the opportunity to visit new levels.

[Anonymous No.3969272]

>>3969225
You're retarded, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.3969301]

>>3969251
I remember Jet Force Jemini's levels as pretty long and labyrinthine and a pain in the ass to slog through. I first played it around age 10 back in late '99 and had no issue clearing the game up to the point that Tribal collecting became necessary to unlock the endgame. Tribal collecting just wasn't fun to me, they die if hit by a stray laser, and I think you have to leave the planet and return to get them to respawn.

As an adult I might appreciate revisiting the levels with better equipment and more skillful playing, like you do, but back then I ended up in the same boat as most players who just stopped having fun while wandering around hunting for Tribals and quit the game in dissatisfaction before true completion.

[Anonymous No.3969421]

>>3968950
>game creators are to games what ball manufacturers are to soccer

Not even close. Ball manufactures are like companies like Mad Catz that make controllers. They're just making the thing you can use to play the game. They didn't set the rules for it. In soccer's case that would the the Football Association.

Now you can go buy a soccer ball and play your own game with it, but you won't be playing soccer. Also, if you show up to a serious soccer match and start breaking the rules because it's how you feel like playing, you will be ridiculed with good reason.

[Anonymous No.3969452]

>>3969421
uh yeah, tell it to this guy>>3968957

[Anonymous No.3969468]

>>3969452
Shit, wrong quote. I apologize. The retard knows who he is though.

[Anonymous No.3970879]

>>3968850
Go for it!

[Anonymous No.3970949]

>>3969225
>spyro isn't even worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as SM64
It is, though, obviously. Spyro is one of the most critically acclaimed 3d platformers of all time. Anyone with a working knowledge of the history of games could tell you this.

You've clearly never actually played it and have no idea what you're saying.

[Anonymous No.3970951]

>>3969225
>spyro isn't even worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as SM64
It is, though, obviously. Spyro is one of the most universally praised and critically acclaimed 3d platformers of all time. Anyone with a working knowledge of the history of games could tell you this.

You've clearly never actually played it and have no idea what you're saying, which is typical of stupid Nintendo faggots.

[Anonymous No.3970956]

>>3969421
>if you show up to a serious soccer match and start breaking the rules because it's how you feel like playing, you will be ridiculed with good reason.
Because it's a multiplayer game.

[Anonymous No.3970957]

>>3969421
>if you show up to a serious soccer match and start breaking the rules because it's how you feel like playing, you will be ridiculed with good reason.
Because it's a multiplayer game. Soccer was a terrible analogy from the start. A much better one would be skateboarding.

[Anonymous No.3970973]

>>3970951
Spyro trilogy is a fun adventure game but the platforming is nowhere near as tight as m64. Suggesting it is is ridiculous.

Seems like people thinking its a collectathon are in the minority.

Www.strawpoll.me/12891819

[Anonymous No.3970992]

>>3970973
>the platforming is nowhere near as tight as m64
lmao

except Spyro 1 has some of the best movement and platforming mechanics ever included in a 3d game. I agree that it's not quite as good as SM64, but it's clearly in the top tier of the genre.

[Anonymous No.3970993]

>>3970973
>the platforming is nowhere near as tight as m64
are you high?

[Anonymous No.3971005]

>>3970993
>using a speedrun to prove your point
>being so disingenuous that you wont include a m64 speedrun that would obliterate your arguement

[Anonymous No.3971015]

>>3971005
here's an sm64 single star: >>3963716
not seeing what's that much "tighter" about it. i guess the animation has more flips in it, which might be more entertaining to look at if you're 12, but Spyro clearly has a higher APM and faster paced movement.

[Anonymous No.3971036]

>>3970993
Holy shit, what exactly is "tight" about what we're seeing here? Spyro-toddlers (lets face it, nobody born before 1995 gives a fuck about this series) are literally delusional.

This looks like more of a collectathon than anything I've seen so far in this thread.

[Anonymous No.3971041]

>>3971036
>what exactly is "tight" about what we're seeing here
the controls and the movement. they're quick and responsive with plenty of tech-depth. flame charges, charge-glides, carrying momentum into jumps to increase height, etc. you're retarded, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.3971043]

>>3963710
holy shit this
I remember being offered an N64 as a kid and they let me play mario 64 in the store for a while
I was so disappointed it wasn't like the 2D games, I hated this boring huge world which wasted most of my time on fucking walking
it was nothing like the fast, tight platforming I was used to

[Anonymous No.3971050]

>>3971043
>has an autistic ioverload if the core gameplay deviates from holding right and jumping
lmao

[Anonymous No.3971054]

>>3971050
>liking boring games that require minimal skill and don't even disguise the fact that they exist to waste your time
yeah, "lmao" right back at you kid

[Anonymous No.3971059]

>>3971054
>require minimal skill
they can require as much skill as you want them to. the skill ceiling on SM64 is leagues higher than any 2d Mario game.

and inb4 "muh skill floor". there is no Mario game that actually requires any skill to complete.

[Anonymous No.3971063]

>>3971041
>the controls and the movement. they're quick and responsive
Wow, congratulations

> tech-depth. flame charges, charge-glides
You can double-prong Spyro's moves all you like but the fact is he hardly has any

>carrying momentum into jumps to increase height
Hah, it's got the same simple momentum physics as any generic platformer

[Anonymous No.3971068]

>>3971059
>they can require as much skill as you want them to
you can make any game in existence "challenging" by playing blindfolded, doesn't make them require skill, you're just putting arbitrary limitations on yourself because the base game is braindead boring

[Anonymous No.3971071]

>>3971063
So you have no actual understanding of how the game works and brainlessly suck SM64's dick despite it being a slower game with clunkier controls and an objectively lower APM.

[Anonymous No.3971075]

>>3971068
>the base game is braindead boring
The base game is objectively more complex and interesting than any 2d mario game. If you put SM64 mario into an empty room you'd have infinitely more to do than if you put SMB1 mario into an empty room.

[Anonymous No.3971081]

>>3971075
yeah, I'd have infinitely more tedious shit to do in SM64 than in SMB1 which does one thing and does it good
quality over quantity

[Anonymous No.3971090]

>>3971081
>quality over quantity
I agree.

SM64 has dozens of quality movement options. SMB1 has one quality movement option.

[Anonymous No.3971092]

>>3970957
>A much better one would be skateboarding.
No it wouldn't. In an way. Finally this is clear though. You're don't understand what a game is, or the difference between playing a game and entertaining yourself with a toy.

[Anonymous No.3971094]

>>3971092
>the difference between playing a game and entertaining yourself with a toy
there is no difference. video games are toys.

[Anonymous No.3971103]

3d plataforming >>> 2d plataforming

if "collectathons" are just wander aroung collecting shit, then 2d plataforming is just going right jumping shit.

[Anonymous No.3971107]

>>3971063
>You can double-prong Spyro's moves all you like but the fact is he hardly has any
You don't understand how movement depth works, do you?

I agree that SM64 has slightly platforming, but saying Spyro doesn't have depth and "tightness" to its movement is so batshit idiotic I don't even know where to begin.

[Anonymous No.3971108]

>>3971107
>slightly platforming
slightly better*

[Anonymous No.3971113]

>>3971107
>saying Spyro doesn't have depth and "tightness" to its movement is so batshit idiotic I don't even know where to begin
It's "tight" in the sense that Spyro moves responsively. But there's absolutely no depth to his movements.

The momentum physics in Spyro are as basic as it gets. The level design in Spyro is also extremely basic.

[Anonymous No.3971116]

>>3971113
>But there's absolutely no depth to his movements.
>The momentum physics in Spyro are as basic as it gets.
Imagine being this delusional.
>The level design in Spyro is also extremely basic.
Oh, so it's bait. Now everything makes sense.

[Anonymous No.3971121]

>>3971113
>there's absolutely no depth to his movements.
you're the type of stupid fuck who thinks "depth" is the same thing as "breadth", aren't you?

[Anonymous No.3971123]

>>3971103
>2d plataforming is just going right jumping shit.

it is, it's also way more fun than anything a collectathon has to offer

[Anonymous No.3971128]

>>3971116
Tree Tops is literally just a bunch of plateaus sitting in space with varying heights.

There was that one puzzle where you had to run the correct way to get to a secret area, but that's about it. Don't recall anything else like it in the game. The momentum is completely artificial anyway since the run pads just give it to you.

[Anonymous No.3971136]

>>3971113
>The level design in Spyro is also extremely basic.
except level design in Spyro is more complex and inventive than anything in SM64. Whomps Fortress is literally the only interesting stage. Maybe Tall Tall Mountain too.

Half the other stages are fucking geometric shapes thrown around randomly and the other half are big, flat, empty landscapes.

[Anonymous No.3971140]

>>3971136
>Half the other stages are fucking geometric shapes thrown around randomly and the other half are big, flat, empty landscapes.
At least there's variety in SM64.

Every single one of Spyro's levels are just a almost completely linear circuit. The only differences are some stages have more bottomless pits and that they have different theming.

The concept of vertically constructed levels almost literally does not exist in the series.

[Anonymous No.3971159]

>>3971063
>You can double-prong Spyro's moves all you like but the fact is he hardly has any
what you don't seem to be able to grasp here is that quantity of abilities isn't 1:1 to a game's depth.

Every class in World of Warcraft has more abilities than SM64, that doesn't mean the abilities themselves have more depth.

Depth is actually something you can't really grasp until you've played the game a shitload. I suspect you've played significantly more SM64 than Spyro.

[Anonymous No.3971182]

>>3971094
>there is no difference

Yes there is. There is a distinct difference between something that is just a toy and a game designed with rules and a goal. You can use a game as a toy, but it means you're not playing the game.

Is this the fault of the modern education system? It seems like an almost daily occurrence around here that people think they can re-define words and concepts as anything they want.

[Anonymous No.3971184]

>>3971063
>You can double-prong Spyro's moves all you like but the fact is he hardly has any
what you don't seem to be able to grasp here is that quantity of abilities isn't 1:1 to a game's depth.

Every class in World of Warcraft has more abilities than SM64, that doesn't mean the abilities themselves have more depth.

Depth is actually about the versatility and skill ceiling of each ability. It's something you can't really grasp until you've played the game a shitload (it's all below the surface, hence "depth"). I suspect you've played significantly more SM64 than Spyro, which lends itself to your obvious preferential bias.

[Anonymous No.3971197]

>>3971182
>You can use a game as a toy, but it means you're not playing the game.
If you're moving your character around with a controller, you're playing the game. The rules are defined by the code, and goals can be set by the player. Miyamoto even agrees with that last point, and that's important, because you folks love assigning authority to developers.

[Anonymous No.3971214]

>>3971197
All you're really saying at this point is that you legitimately don't know what a game is. Rules are what makes a game a game. Playing with Chess pieces like they're toy soldiers or throwing them through hoops isn't playing chess. It's playing *with* Chess pieces.

If you seriously don't understand the important difference then seek professional help or go back to school. This is an 18+ board. You should at least have a basic understanding of language.

[Anonymous No.3971224]

>>3971214
>Rules are what makes a game a game.
When you play a video game, there are hard coded rules you must abide by, yes. Zero people disagreed with this.
>Playing with Chess pieces like they're toy soldiers or throwing them through hoops isn't playing chess. It's playing *with* Chess pieces.
Obviously in a competitive context there may be rules that need to be agreed upon by competitors. Nobody disagreed with this either.

[Anonymous No.3971247]

>>3971184
>Depth is actually about the versatility and skill ceiling of each ability.
It's either about a few moves that have depth in-themselves, or a lot of moves that have depth in their combination.

Spyro has neither. In the first game he has, what? A dash, glide and flame attack? The latter is cone-based attack with absolutely zero skill potential. Spyro's dash and glides have the bare simplest of physics built into them.

[Anonymous No.3971253]

>>3971247
>Spyro has neither. In the first game he has, what? A dash, glide and flame attack? The latter is cone-based attack with absolutely zero skill potential. Spyro's dash and glides have the bare simplest of physics built into them.
So you don't even have a basic understanding of how Spyro tech works. I'm not going to sit here explaining it all to you.

The irony here is that I've delved into SM64 speedrunning, so there's a large chance I know more about the movement depth in that game than you do as well.

[Anonymous No.3971256]

>>3971253
You're nothing but a born-in-1995 pretender. Nobody gave a shit about Spyro on this website before the ~1995 crowd were old enough to post here.

But please, keep feigning some kind of inside knowledge under a guise of "too-cool" "I'm not gonna explain it to you".

Using speedrunning as an example of anything is pretty weak, IMO, but anyway Spyro speedrunning is all about holding the dash button and hitting jump at the right time while you zoom around its circuit levels collecting trillions of little gems.

[Anonymous No.3971258]

>>3971224
You're hopeless.

[Anonymous No.3971262]

>>3971256
>Using speedrunning as an example of anything is pretty weak
Speedrunners take advantage of the depth in movement to its most extreme, so it's actually the best reference point from which to discuss tech and nuances of mechanics.
>Spyro speedrunning is all about holding the dash button and hitting jump at the right time while you zoom around its circuit levels collecting trillions of little gems.
No, that's wrong, and you're a mongoloid.

[Anonymous No.3971269]

>>3966865
I wasn't having a meltdown, it was just this smug way he said it. Collectathons can be just as fun and creative as adventure games or "fetch-quests".

In fact one of the reasons for the demise of collectathons was just that they demanded such high creativity and originality that developers started hitting a wall as to what to do next. With RPGs you can always invent some ridiculous fetch-quest, throw in some medieval nonsense and you're set to go. Collectathons are hard to make, and that's not to mention the FIFA/Maddens and the CoDs. Whether you agree with that or not, his tinned answer rubbed me the wrong way, how he said it like it was some kind of fact when it's personal taste.

[Anonymous No.3971273]

>>3971262
>so it's actually the best reference point from which to discuss tech and nuances of mechanics.
Sometimes. But much of the time the techniques used bare no resemblance to regular play.

>No, that's wrong, and you're a mongoloid.
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.3971276]

>>3971273
>Not an argument
Super Mario 64 speedrunning is all about jumping at the right time and holding a direction while you collect coins and hats and stars lol!

Anything can sound retarded when you reduce it to its lowest common denominator.

[Anonymous No.3971291]

>>3971276
I wasn't the one who claimed SM64 should be judged by its speedrunning.

The fact is that it's a much deeper and involving game than Spyro even if you play the game normally. Spyro is not a classic platformer. Nobody cared or mentioned Spyro before say ~2010. On the other hand, SM64 maintained its popularity straight through since 1996. It appeals to all generations, not just those who were 3 years old when it came out (unlike Spyro).

[Anonymous No.3971295]

>>3971291
>Nobody cared or mentioned Spyro before say ~2010
not that guy, but only three N64 games sold more copies than Spyro 1. it's one of the most critically acclaimed and beloved 3d platformers ever made.

and of course it's not a classic platformer, no collectathon is.

[Anonymous No.3971302]

>>3971295
>only three N64 games sold more copies than Spyro 1
It had little competition on the PS1. It probably was the best fully 3D platformer on that console. Parents bought it for their toddlers in large numbers. What we're seeing posted on /v/ and /vr/ in 2017 is the delayed result of this consumer action.

>it's one of the most critically acclaimed and beloved 3d platformers ever made.
It didn't even break 90% on Gamerankings. Its score is much closer to Gex 3D and Rocket Robot on Wheels than it is to Mario 64, Banjo-Kazooie, Rayman 2, etc.

http://www.gamerankings.com/ps/198754-spyro-the-dragon/

[Anonymous No.3971381]

>>3971302
>Parents bought it for their toddlers in large numbers. What we're seeing posted on /v/ and /vr/ in 2017 is the delayed result of this consumer action.
As opposed to the droves of sophisticated adults buying N64s to play red plumber in mushroom land?

I'm from 88. I had both games as a kid. They're both designed for babies, and they're both great. You're a pompous fucking cunt. Crawl down off your high horse.

[Anonymous No.3971397]

>>3971258
That's right, little guy. Run away.

[Anonymous No.3971428]

>>3971381
>As opposed to the droves of sophisticated adults buying N64s to play red plumber in mushroom land?

Not him but dude what are the fuck are you saying? "droves of sophisticated adults"? If you really were born in 1988 you certainly aren't showing it.

There are droves of sophisticated adults who bought and still enjoy Super Mario 64. Just by adding adjectives like that to make it sound childish =/= reality. If a biologist writes a book about monkeys are you going to say: "as if biologists will read about lanky-mango swinging in the trees".... yes they will, no matter how you put it.

By saying Super Mario 64 is a game "for babies" you show you are not only immature but you aren't even a real gamer. Get out of here please.

[Anonymous No.3971442]

>>3971428
Mario games are designed for children. That is a fact. It's okay for adults to enjoy things that are designed for children, but to deny that it was designed for children is as delusional as thinking Star Wars wasn't designed for children.

[Anonymous No.3971538]

>>3971059
Have you ever beaten Mario 1 without warps or continues? Mario 3 and lost levels are decently challenging too

[Anonymous No.3971548]

>>3971538
>Have you ever beaten Mario 1 without warps or continues?
Yes, several times. Not difficult. I also beat Lost Levels warpless in a 2 hour sitting the first time I ever played the game. It was mildly challenging, but I wouldn't say it required anything resembling "skill." SMB3 is piss easy.

SM64 is by far the best mario game.

[Anonymous No.3972050]

>>3970957
>A much better one would be skateboarding
If that's how you view Super Mario 64, then your idea of it is to perform tricks instead of winning a game. At this point we're comparing apples and oranges. There's nothing wrong with preferring that kind of challenge, but you can't say it's a greater or more legitimate challenge because it gives you more freedom.

[Anonymous No.3972101]

>>3972050
That's the kind of game SM64 is, though. From the start it was intended as a parkour sandbox to have fun in, because that was how Miyamoto envisioned 3d gaming. The movement was developed to be fun on its own before anything else in the game. Stars were added later as an arbitrary incentive to get you to want to go around doing things, but Miyamoto didn't ever intend to limit players to only that. The whole idea was just for you to be doing things, period.

[Anonymous No.3972330]

>>3971140
>At least there's variety in SM64.
Level variety means shit when most of the actual design of said levels is subpar at best.