-
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.
Hot Take: Spyro Original Trilogy Better Than Mario 64
- Thread starter jman1954goat
- Start date
The hottest take: I wasn't 10 when I played Spyro, so I don't have that nostalgia that seems to give this mediocre game such a legendary status.
When you consider the time Mario 64 was made, it's just impressive what Miyamoto and crew was able to pull off at their first try at a 3D action/adventure game.
The most impressive thing is how the game still holds up today pretty well.
Complaining about storytelling, or even the camera controls of Mario 64 is to me the same as complaining about the lack of color or sound in a Charlie Chaplin movie, sure it can feel "different" and "weird" to a crowd that is used to these features or improvements but it does not ruin the masterpiece that it actually is.
The most impressive thing is how the game still holds up today pretty well.
Complaining about storytelling, or even the camera controls of Mario 64 is to me the same as complaining about the lack of color or sound in a Charlie Chaplin movie, sure it can feel "different" and "weird" to a crowd that is used to these features or improvements but it does not ruin the masterpiece that it actually is.
is it the time of the month when some dude on era goes "this nearly forgotten mascot platformer is better than Mario 64"?
So it's been a while since I've played any of those games but I think Mario 64 is better than Spyro 1 but Spyro 2 is at the very least on par with Mario 64. That's understandable though because there's three years between Mario 64 and Spyro 2 as well as lessons learned from Spyro 1. If the argument in favour for Mario 64 is going to be that it was much more ground breaking then I don't think there's a discussion worth having because of course Mario 64 was ground breaking but that is not a shield.
Mario 64 is an intentionally forgiving game because it was going to be a lot of peoples first experience with 3D movement. The platforms are large and easy to land on, and Mario has an abundant amount of health. I would even go as far as saying the only actual platforming challenges in Mario 64 come from the pre-Bowser levels and I think the Cloud + Clock tower level. That's not to say Spyro 2 doesn't have these traits but it builds on the foundation that Mario originally laid out. The environment is a little more hazardous, you can only take three hits before you're out, light puzzle solving or timed challenges and lots of unique charming characters with great voice acting. I think praising the controls of Mario 64 is doing some disservice to Spyro 2 as well, dashing in that game felt extremely good. It was fast, felt fluid, and it was fun to run around in the large levels ramming into enemies and switches. I also think Spyro 2 should be commended for how good it manages to make swimming feel.
Mario 64 is an intentionally forgiving game because it was going to be a lot of peoples first experience with 3D movement. The platforms are large and easy to land on, and Mario has an abundant amount of health. I would even go as far as saying the only actual platforming challenges in Mario 64 come from the pre-Bowser levels and I think the Cloud + Clock tower level. That's not to say Spyro 2 doesn't have these traits but it builds on the foundation that Mario originally laid out. The environment is a little more hazardous, you can only take three hits before you're out, light puzzle solving or timed challenges and lots of unique charming characters with great voice acting. I think praising the controls of Mario 64 is doing some disservice to Spyro 2 as well, dashing in that game felt extremely good. It was fast, felt fluid, and it was fun to run around in the large levels ramming into enemies and switches. I also think Spyro 2 should be commended for how good it manages to make swimming feel.
I really think they're both just fantastic games. If I had to pick one it'd be Spyro 2 because I just have more fun with that game personally.
I can appreciate that they both have good and bad elements about them though. Mario has a pretty poor camera, and it does feel clunky in places. Especially during smaller levels like Big Boos Haunt, or when you're swimming. Swimming in Spyro feels so fluid, in 64 it's a bit of a chore to be honest.
But I think one big difference is that most of the time, Spyro really isn't a challenging game, most of the time it's not even a platformer. Sure you're jumping up ledges and exploring a 3D environment, but it's rare that platforming is the explicit source of challenge. It's a game that feels like it's designed for you to get to the end.
Whereas Mario 64 really challenges you to see if you can get the star on each stage. The peculiar thing about Spyro, is that it features occasionally really rather extreme difficulty spikes. Usually the chases or flying levels end up being much more difficult than the rest of the game, there's a notorious on-rails section from the third game that's a perfect example of this too. It just wants to do a few too many things at times, I think.
But there's something really satisfying about Spyro. I love how quickly you can move through the levels. The camera is pretty good and keeps up with the action. Flying and swimming both feel liberating, giving you almost complete freedom of movement. Smashing crates and collecting gems has a really good feeling. Mario has it's own style, with platforming systems that afford creativity with 'movement tech' but we have to be realistic, the average player, particularly when the game released, did not play these games like that.
So, I really like both of them, but for different reasons. It's cliche to say it, but they're apples and oranges really.
I can appreciate that they both have good and bad elements about them though. Mario has a pretty poor camera, and it does feel clunky in places. Especially during smaller levels like Big Boos Haunt, or when you're swimming. Swimming in Spyro feels so fluid, in 64 it's a bit of a chore to be honest.
But I think one big difference is that most of the time, Spyro really isn't a challenging game, most of the time it's not even a platformer. Sure you're jumping up ledges and exploring a 3D environment, but it's rare that platforming is the explicit source of challenge. It's a game that feels like it's designed for you to get to the end.
Whereas Mario 64 really challenges you to see if you can get the star on each stage. The peculiar thing about Spyro, is that it features occasionally really rather extreme difficulty spikes. Usually the chases or flying levels end up being much more difficult than the rest of the game, there's a notorious on-rails section from the third game that's a perfect example of this too. It just wants to do a few too many things at times, I think.
But there's something really satisfying about Spyro. I love how quickly you can move through the levels. The camera is pretty good and keeps up with the action. Flying and swimming both feel liberating, giving you almost complete freedom of movement. Smashing crates and collecting gems has a really good feeling. Mario has it's own style, with platforming systems that afford creativity with 'movement tech' but we have to be realistic, the average player, particularly when the game released, did not play these games like that.
So, I really like both of them, but for different reasons. It's cliche to say it, but they're apples and oranges really.
I think I do too, I play that game through the lens of it being the first game to perfect 3D movement though, so it's faults are easier to excuse I guess.
Banjo may have more content and also push the N64 more graphically but as a game not even close to Mario 64. Mario 64 had well designed challlenges for almost all of the stars besides the coin ones... Banjo was start of that dull collectathon style game, though not as bad as the likes of DK64 would end up being.
Mario also controls much better for my liking.
Spyro was okay i guess, nothing particularly memorable. Klonoa remains the best platformer on PSX eventhough it's not a 3D platformer.
Mario also controls much better for my liking.
Spyro was okay i guess, nothing particularly memorable. Klonoa remains the best platformer on PSX eventhough it's not a 3D platformer.
For me, Mario 64 and Banjo Kazooie are just about tied in terms of which one I love the most, they just have different strengths/weaknesses.
Mario 64 for pure game feel. It's just so much fun to MOVE in that game, and that's 90% of what I love about it.
Banjo Kazooie doesn't have nearly the same same feel as Mario 64 (still totally fun, just not to the level of Mario 64), BUT it has a more interesting hub world, it has most of my favorite 3D platformers levels, a great sense of humor, and some of the best music ever in a video game.
Spyro is a totally solid 3D platformer series, my personal favorites not originating on a Nintendo console, but for me they just lack something to put them in the upper echelon of 3D platformers.
I think they're on the simpler side which was made even clearer to me when I started the remasters. They look amazing and play very well, but there's just not a lot them for me. Exploration isn't as big of a focus (beyond hunting for gems), the platformer doesn't really have much more to them, beyond the new characters and mini-games they added to the sequels.
I think the Ratchet and Clank games were a perfect evolution and DID get that extra something to make them more engaging for me (the crazy weapons, upgrade systems, bit more engaging/funny stories, etc).
Mario 64 for pure game feel. It's just so much fun to MOVE in that game, and that's 90% of what I love about it.
Banjo Kazooie doesn't have nearly the same same feel as Mario 64 (still totally fun, just not to the level of Mario 64), BUT it has a more interesting hub world, it has most of my favorite 3D platformers levels, a great sense of humor, and some of the best music ever in a video game.
Spyro is a totally solid 3D platformer series, my personal favorites not originating on a Nintendo console, but for me they just lack something to put them in the upper echelon of 3D platformers.
I think they're on the simpler side which was made even clearer to me when I started the remasters. They look amazing and play very well, but there's just not a lot them for me. Exploration isn't as big of a focus (beyond hunting for gems), the platformer doesn't really have much more to them, beyond the new characters and mini-games they added to the sequels.
I think the Ratchet and Clank games were a perfect evolution and DID get that extra something to make them more engaging for me (the crazy weapons, upgrade systems, bit more engaging/funny stories, etc).
I certainly had more fun with Sonic Heroes than Sunshine.
But is Sonic Unleashed better than Mario Galaxy? 🤔
No, it isn't.
I definitely prefer the whole package of Spyro to Mario 64, even though the difficulty was very relaxed. I know M64 was closer to the birth of 3D, but I nonetheless dislike its environment art/design. A lot of it just looks like they were trying to use as many different textures as they had on hand without much rhyme or reason.
Always looked tacky to me, like levels constructed in some other game's level editor, constrained by the limitations therein.
Always looked tacky to me, like levels constructed in some other game's level editor, constrained by the limitations therein.
I always felt that Spyro was a not remarkable series, some friends used to have some strong nostalgia for the series but then tried the Reignitied Trilogy and agreed that the series it was kind of boring and dull.
Mario 64 on the other hand is one of those few games that not only innovated an entire genre, they created a wonderful experience that is still fun, even if the game itself has not aged that well and has some problems like camera etc...
Mario 64 on the other hand is one of those few games that not only innovated an entire genre, they created a wonderful experience that is still fun, even if the game itself has not aged that well and has some problems like camera etc...
I mean, theres opinions, and then theres objectively wrong statements that are so incredibly wrong, surely as the words left your brain and entered the screen there was a little voice in the back of your mind saying "Maybe I'm wrong?". Spyro is barely a platformer. Its a collectathon with occasional jumping. He has a bad jump, an unweildy run, an attack with zero weight.The animations vary from serviceable to bad. The levels are repetitive and uninteresting.
Mario 64 has more interesting level design in one level than Spyro has in any of his 3 misadventures. Mario can actually fly, Spryo just glides like an injured parakeet. Mario jumps high with crazy mechanical depth. Spyro can barely jump at all, like a president with pretend bone spurs.
In conclusion: No.
Mario 64 has more interesting level design in one level than Spyro has in any of his 3 misadventures. Mario can actually fly, Spryo just glides like an injured parakeet. Mario jumps high with crazy mechanical depth. Spyro can barely jump at all, like a president with pretend bone spurs.
In conclusion: No.
Fuck Spyro
Mario 64 is a very important game, but I hate the way just moving around feels, everything is just so ugly, with the most rote color choices possible, and though the compositions themselves are great, the music sounds like ass.
I hate everything about interacting with Mario 64.
I hate everything about interacting with Mario 64.
I think Banjo is the best overall, as an adventure game.
Mario has the best platforming mechanics though.
Spyro is fun, but it really can't compete.
Mario has the best platforming mechanics though.
Spyro is fun, but it really can't compete.
