-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Do you prefer hub worlds, open worlds, or linear level progression in your 3D platformers?
- Thread starter ScOULaris
- Start date
Super Mario 64 was AWESOME in this regard. Not only was the painting their own world, but the world in which they existed - the castle - was a maze where some were slightly hidden away or obscured for the player to have difficulty finding (the ghost lamp, etc.). It was a wonderful feeling the first time playing this game because you didn't know which paintings could be played and throughout the castle you stumbled upon one or two that weren't readily obvious and you also found a few secrets.
I honestly can't say which I prefer - it really depends on the game and what it has going for it. I know that Dark Souls 2 is my favorite of each hubs because while the diverging paths don't necessarily connect back to Majula, I felt like each one was a fantasy adventure into untold parts of the world, where once you made it to the end of one, now it was time to journey along the other path to the end of those fantasy worlds. People laud Dark Souls for the first half of the game connecting back to the Firelink Shrine, which is understandable, but I much prefer Dark Souls 2.
Edit: Completely missed the "3D platformers" part. Sorry lol
I honestly can't say which I prefer - it really depends on the game and what it has going for it. I know that Dark Souls 2 is my favorite of each hubs because while the diverging paths don't necessarily connect back to Majula, I felt like each one was a fantasy adventure into untold parts of the world, where once you made it to the end of one, now it was time to journey along the other path to the end of those fantasy worlds. People laud Dark Souls for the first half of the game connecting back to the Firelink Shrine, which is understandable, but I much prefer Dark Souls 2.
Edit: Completely missed the "3D platformers" part. Sorry lol
Last edited:
I would have preferred the Cap Kingdom as the hub in Mario Odyssey, I guess they didn't want to overwhelm the player, considering how big the worlds can be.
It depends, if it give you a backstory and wondreful vibe like the first Mario Galaxy, than that all day!
Galaxy 2 was so lifeless... it seemed like a mod/level pack....
[for a game like DK I'm fine with normal level selection]
Galaxy 2 was so lifeless... it seemed like a mod/level pack....
[for a game like DK I'm fine with normal level selection]
Definitely linear progression or world map. My favorite platformers are Pac Man World 2, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze, Crash 1 and Crash 2. The only open world/collectathon platformer I really like is Jak and Daxter.
Mario hasn't done an open world, though. Galaxy 2, 3D Land/World, and Odyssey have linear level progression. 64, Sunshine, and Galaxy 1 have hub worlds.
Hub Worlds are homely nice breathers inbetween well structured levels. Which I tend to like best.
Open Worlds I have these as well. But it's less clear when such instances occur and can also be missed entirely if you go in the wrong direction.
Linear is fine, it tends to pull out stronger level design in the process.
I go with Hub Worlds overall.
Open Worlds I have these as well. But it's less clear when such instances occur and can also be missed entirely if you go in the wrong direction.
Linear is fine, it tends to pull out stronger level design in the process.
I go with Hub Worlds overall.
Odyssey has a level select, so it's not open world, but each world is explorable, so not really "linear" either.
Last edited:
You're thinking about the levels themselves instead of the way they are structured in the game.
The OP is asking about the latter.
Hub worlds, although their potential is rarely realized.
Sly (especially 2 and 3) had interesting hubs that connected each chapter's levels together as you prepared for your heist. Some levels or tasks involved the hub world itself, and there were your usual assortment of collectibles and secrets too.
Unfortunately most are wasted when the hub is just a room with a series of doors to each level. I'm playing through the first Spyro game right now and its 'hub' is more than a little anemic.
Sly (especially 2 and 3) had interesting hubs that connected each chapter's levels together as you prepared for your heist. Some levels or tasks involved the hub world itself, and there were your usual assortment of collectibles and secrets too.
Unfortunately most are wasted when the hub is just a room with a series of doors to each level. I'm playing through the first Spyro game right now and its 'hub' is more than a little anemic.
HUB world with explorable levels like Mario 64 and Sunshine. Linearity was the main reason Galaxy was inferior to those 2 earlier games.
Ugh, to each its own, but this exactly what I don't like about hub worlds. I prefer having the content in a more streamlined way.
I wonder how much people's answers are influenced by the first games they played. Super Mario 64 and Banjo-Kazooie were the first platformers I seriously played, and so I tend to enjoy hub worlds more than linear progression.
I prefer linear. Just guide me from point A to Z. I don't need hubs or open worlds in my platformers.
I love the hub world in the new Yooka-Laylee, it's what I hope future Nintendo games will be going for as well.
Simple world maps are fine enough most of the time, but they need at least some creative or charming twist; like, Kirby's Epic Yarn had all these lovely little animations after clearing a level that unlocked the next one on the map (basically, they "created" new levels). Maybe someone else remembers that as well. I also enjoyed the simple, but also kind of fun world map in Super Mario 3D World where you at least could walk through a beautiful 3D space. Actually, I love it in general when a map / hub world teases or shows off a level in some way or another - be it the gallery in SM64 or the wonderful tiny 3D models of galaxies in Mario Galaxy.
A map like DLC Returns or TF though? Go away with that.
So yeah, I'd pick hub worlds if I can choose, but I also wouldn't say no to a nicely designed, detailed and at least a bit interactive world map.
Some maps that I like: Kirby's Epic Yarn, Yooka-Laylee and the Impossible Lair, Super Mario 64, Gex 2 and 3, Super Mario 3D World, Klonoa 1, Crash Bandicoot 1-3 (it's so simple yet so different!)
Simple world maps are fine enough most of the time, but they need at least some creative or charming twist; like, Kirby's Epic Yarn had all these lovely little animations after clearing a level that unlocked the next one on the map (basically, they "created" new levels). Maybe someone else remembers that as well. I also enjoyed the simple, but also kind of fun world map in Super Mario 3D World where you at least could walk through a beautiful 3D space. Actually, I love it in general when a map / hub world teases or shows off a level in some way or another - be it the gallery in SM64 or the wonderful tiny 3D models of galaxies in Mario Galaxy.
A map like DLC Returns or TF though? Go away with that.
So yeah, I'd pick hub worlds if I can choose, but I also wouldn't say no to a nicely designed, detailed and at least a bit interactive world map.
Some maps that I like: Kirby's Epic Yarn, Yooka-Laylee and the Impossible Lair, Super Mario 64, Gex 2 and 3, Super Mario 3D World, Klonoa 1, Crash Bandicoot 1-3 (it's so simple yet so different!)
That's one of the most challenging questions of our time in concerns to the Mario games (all the other games have movement capabilities/speeds poorly adjusted for open areas/worlds). Another genre this question occurs in is the stealth genre ala Tenchu: Stealth Assassin's linear training level versus its open area levels. Performance <-> Comfy.
Open area levels are to allow branching paths. I think Sonic Adventure 1 and 2 would have done far better only having the classic linear-based levels back-to-back. Same situation with the Mirror's Edge sequel. Wario World was worse for the HUB-like levels. Maximo's HUB isn't particularly necessary. The Mario games are not as clear-cut.
In Super Mario 64, I'd give Tiny, Huge Island and Bowser in the Fire Sea the win for respective open area world and linear level.
In Sonic Adventure, I'd give Emerald Coast and Mystic Ruins the win in their respective areas.
It's clear to me that the character's speed must be able to contain the level space to stay true to platforming goodness.
This is a tough decision as there are a lot of factors involved, but, imo, the overworld map in Mario games seen in Super Mario World, Super Mario Galaxy 2, and Super Mario 3D World are annoyingly slow: (1) transitioning from level to level is slow unlike Super Mario Bros. 3's snappy path movement; the paths slowly form before you're allowed to move to the next level wasting precious seconds, which feels like a load time; (2) Mario's movement speed in Super Mario Galaxy is too slow to move around quickly to any level he wants in the Comet Observatory, which turns the world selection process into going on a hike rather than a sprint. I do think there is a psychological reason in keeping the overworld map as a way to have a normal-looking level select option. Additionally, it may be seen as a comforting to players to not see beaten levels x'd out and unavailable (i.e. SMB3) to have the world always looking accessible.
I think the major criticism, besides the level-select map going back to being snappy and purposeful as it was in SMB3, is that the unfolding process and stepping onto new level spaces is lackluster compared to the super pleasant artistic portrayals showing what's to come like in Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island.
Open area levels are to allow branching paths. I think Sonic Adventure 1 and 2 would have done far better only having the classic linear-based levels back-to-back. Same situation with the Mirror's Edge sequel. Wario World was worse for the HUB-like levels. Maximo's HUB isn't particularly necessary. The Mario games are not as clear-cut.
In Super Mario 64, I'd give Tiny, Huge Island and Bowser in the Fire Sea the win for respective open area world and linear level.
In Sonic Adventure, I'd give Emerald Coast and Mystic Ruins the win in their respective areas.
It's clear to me that the character's speed must be able to contain the level space to stay true to platforming goodness.
Yeah, I agree. Peach's Castle is the magical HUB world to beat. It's small in size, each floor is easily accessible, and it has the best discovery (the 100% reward). Super Mario Sunshine's Isle Delfino is mechanically better suited for performance and is perfectly-sized to allow for spreadout expansion to faraway areas/levels though.
Peach's Castle is so much more than a means of padding out the game's length, IMO. It's half the fun of playing through M64.
For me, I think I lean toward preferring hub worlds. I've always liked how the best 3D platformers and their level design remind me of exploring a theme park, and hub worlds evoke that classic hub-and-spoke design that strengthens that association with something like The Magic Kingdom for me. Peach's Castle has taken on a much more iconic presence since being utilized as the central hub world for Mario 64, and to me that's the single best hub world to date in a platformer.
The switch to a simple level-select map in Galaxy 2 was Miyamoto's decision, and not one that I agreed with.
This is a tough decision as there are a lot of factors involved, but, imo, the overworld map in Mario games seen in Super Mario World, Super Mario Galaxy 2, and Super Mario 3D World are annoyingly slow: (1) transitioning from level to level is slow unlike Super Mario Bros. 3's snappy path movement; the paths slowly form before you're allowed to move to the next level wasting precious seconds, which feels like a load time; (2) Mario's movement speed in Super Mario Galaxy is too slow to move around quickly to any level he wants in the Comet Observatory, which turns the world selection process into going on a hike rather than a sprint. I do think there is a psychological reason in keeping the overworld map as a way to have a normal-looking level select option. Additionally, it may be seen as a comforting to players to not see beaten levels x'd out and unavailable (i.e. SMB3) to have the world always looking accessible.
I think the major criticism, besides the level-select map going back to being snappy and purposeful as it was in SMB3, is that the unfolding process and stepping onto new level spaces is lackluster compared to the super pleasant artistic portrayals showing what's to come like in Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island.
Last edited:
I like what pre-BOTW Zelda games did best. They weren't *quite* open world but were very close to it. Very free, but there's still a bit of level progression in the sense that you can't just go anywhere you want; you need to complete certain tasks/get certain equipment in order to go some places.
