There's one thing that has always stuck out to me when thinking about the differences between 2D platformers and 3D ones: a different emphasis on precision and difficulty.
I think it's fair to say that most 3D platformers tend to be relatively easy, by and large, with most of the actually challenging content being reserved for post-game completionist stuff. This is not generally the case with 2D platformers, especially in a post-masocore platformer world where indie platformers have no issue demanding the utmost precision from players. This divide is probably a result of a number of factors.
For starters, the added considerations of depth and camera control (or lack thereof) in 3D platformers make for more frustration upon failure. It's far easier to feel like the game cheated you or killed you unfairly in a 3D platformer than in a 2D one, as a general rule, because of these added elements that tend to be really hard to get right from a development standpoint. To work around the increased complexity of simply navigating a 3D environment filled with moving platforms and enemies, many 3D platformers allow the player character to take multiple hits before encountering a fail state. They also often provide ample opportunities to replenish said health points throughout the levels. This results in far fewer deaths on average than what a player will typically experience in an even moderately difficulty 2D platformer.
2D platformers have increasingly bent toward highly precise, challenging designs in the last decade.
Secondly, the impact of Mario 64 on the genre cannot be understated. Mario 64 continued down the trajectory set forth by Super Mario World before it and tried to offer players a far more accessible and gentle difficulty curve than the original three NES Mario games did. It's clear that they wanted more people to be able to finish Mario games at that time, and that design philosophy combined with wanting to ease players into this new experience of platforming in 3D meant that hardcore, precision platforming challenge was not part of the template that Mario 64 established. And from there damn near every 3D platformer that followed took a page or ten out of Mario 64's book, right down to their general approach to difficulty.
Mario 64 resonates through nearly every game in the genre that followed it, right down to its approachable difficulty.
This brings me to the subject of this thread: the Crash Bandicoot series.
Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of the Crash games, but I do respect the unique identity that they have among 3D platformers even to this day. The original Crash (PS1) represented a different approach to bringing platformers into a 3D plane than what Nintendo ended up doing with the sprawling, open areas of Mario 64. Crash was a more literal translation of 2D platforming level design into a z-axis perspective. You'd be going left to right sometimes, just like a 2D platformer, and then the rest of the time you were strictly going into or away from the background down tight, linear corridors of death. Ultimately, this stopgap style of platforming between 2D and 3D sensibilities wasn't the inspiration that other 3D platformers would run with in the future.
I just think this is an awesome trailer and wanted to share it.
This leaves the Crash games in a unique spot. I recently picked up Crash 4, and while it's certainly manageable I find myself dying ten times more often than I would in any other 3D platformers. Simply getting through a level with unlimited lives is reasonable enough, but there's no question that death comes swiftly and often in this game just like the originals. It doesn't always feel fair, mind you. Plenty of deaths come on the heels of a misjudged depth assessment due to the game's limiting behind-the-back camera angle at times or as a result of somewhat inconsistent hit detection. These issues are nowhere near as bad as they were in the Crash N. Sanity Trilogy, however. Crash 4 is immensely improved in that regard and feels much better to play.
I just find it interesting that as 3D platformers seem to be having something of a renaissance in recent years (which makes me very happy) the Crash games seem to be the only ones that bring the difficulty. They've remained true to the 2D/3D-hybrid nature of the original game way back in 1996, and that's pretty cool. Crash 4 still feels a little too clumsy and punishing to me at times, which keeps it from being among my favorites in the genre, but I do respect what Toys for Bob has done with it. It's a game that sticks to its roots despite all of its contemporaries walking a different path, and it does so with production values that you don't often see in a 3D platformer these days.
_________________________________
What do you all think? Is Crash the hardest 3D platformer series around? Or does its pseudo-2.5D nature disqualify it from comparison against other games in the genre?
I think it's fair to say that most 3D platformers tend to be relatively easy, by and large, with most of the actually challenging content being reserved for post-game completionist stuff. This is not generally the case with 2D platformers, especially in a post-masocore platformer world where indie platformers have no issue demanding the utmost precision from players. This divide is probably a result of a number of factors.
For starters, the added considerations of depth and camera control (or lack thereof) in 3D platformers make for more frustration upon failure. It's far easier to feel like the game cheated you or killed you unfairly in a 3D platformer than in a 2D one, as a general rule, because of these added elements that tend to be really hard to get right from a development standpoint. To work around the increased complexity of simply navigating a 3D environment filled with moving platforms and enemies, many 3D platformers allow the player character to take multiple hits before encountering a fail state. They also often provide ample opportunities to replenish said health points throughout the levels. This results in far fewer deaths on average than what a player will typically experience in an even moderately difficulty 2D platformer.
2D platformers have increasingly bent toward highly precise, challenging designs in the last decade.
Secondly, the impact of Mario 64 on the genre cannot be understated. Mario 64 continued down the trajectory set forth by Super Mario World before it and tried to offer players a far more accessible and gentle difficulty curve than the original three NES Mario games did. It's clear that they wanted more people to be able to finish Mario games at that time, and that design philosophy combined with wanting to ease players into this new experience of platforming in 3D meant that hardcore, precision platforming challenge was not part of the template that Mario 64 established. And from there damn near every 3D platformer that followed took a page or ten out of Mario 64's book, right down to their general approach to difficulty.
Mario 64 resonates through nearly every game in the genre that followed it, right down to its approachable difficulty.
This brings me to the subject of this thread: the Crash Bandicoot series.
Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of the Crash games, but I do respect the unique identity that they have among 3D platformers even to this day. The original Crash (PS1) represented a different approach to bringing platformers into a 3D plane than what Nintendo ended up doing with the sprawling, open areas of Mario 64. Crash was a more literal translation of 2D platforming level design into a z-axis perspective. You'd be going left to right sometimes, just like a 2D platformer, and then the rest of the time you were strictly going into or away from the background down tight, linear corridors of death. Ultimately, this stopgap style of platforming between 2D and 3D sensibilities wasn't the inspiration that other 3D platformers would run with in the future.
I just think this is an awesome trailer and wanted to share it.
This leaves the Crash games in a unique spot. I recently picked up Crash 4, and while it's certainly manageable I find myself dying ten times more often than I would in any other 3D platformers. Simply getting through a level with unlimited lives is reasonable enough, but there's no question that death comes swiftly and often in this game just like the originals. It doesn't always feel fair, mind you. Plenty of deaths come on the heels of a misjudged depth assessment due to the game's limiting behind-the-back camera angle at times or as a result of somewhat inconsistent hit detection. These issues are nowhere near as bad as they were in the Crash N. Sanity Trilogy, however. Crash 4 is immensely improved in that regard and feels much better to play.
I just find it interesting that as 3D platformers seem to be having something of a renaissance in recent years (which makes me very happy) the Crash games seem to be the only ones that bring the difficulty. They've remained true to the 2D/3D-hybrid nature of the original game way back in 1996, and that's pretty cool. Crash 4 still feels a little too clumsy and punishing to me at times, which keeps it from being among my favorites in the genre, but I do respect what Toys for Bob has done with it. It's a game that sticks to its roots despite all of its contemporaries walking a different path, and it does so with production values that you don't often see in a 3D platformer these days.
_________________________________
What do you all think? Is Crash the hardest 3D platformer series around? Or does its pseudo-2.5D nature disqualify it from comparison against other games in the genre?
Last edited:
