Why Spyro: Year of The Dragon Was The Best Platformer EVER Made and >> SMG

Spyro: Year of The Dragon was absolutely god-like. The game was better than any platformer of its time, including Super Mario 64 in every way. It even holds up to Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2 in terms of production values. (most who dissagree have not played the game)

First, Ill start by better graphics, but the main thing about it was how they managed to bring such a unique twist to the genre such as making the character be a 4 legged draggon who could fly and breathe fire at will! (when I was 6 and saw the commercials for the spyro games, I was so amused by it for some reason. The Idea of breathing fire at will was so amazing to me)

You see, Insomniac actually brought 2 distinctive/innovative core gameplay mechanics into the genre that were pretty much exclusive to the franchise (the flying mechanics, and the flame breath). This was a HUGE thing in a genre which was filled with cash-ins who were simply copying mario. These 2 features were HUGE and allowed Spyro to create a distinctive niche within the genre that only spyro could fill (without being labled a copycat). Sort of like God of War's blades of chaos.

Its extremely hard to mimic an experience like GoW's Blades of Chaos without coming dangerously close to the blatant "rip-off" status. You see this with Dantes Inferno, and C:LOS. The same went for Spyro at the time. It had everything SM64 had, but these 2 distinctive core gameplay mechanics really made it stand out and create its own niche that can only be filled by itself. This was also a good thing, because if you remember back to the PSone days, platformers back then were the equivalent to shooters this gen....the cash-in genre.

They even had multiple characters that each had distinctive gameplay st-yle that mixed the gameplay up, and plenty of minigames (the skateboarding level was EPIC!!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL9Q-MiukdkYou could do that as long as you wanted too! and you can go back any time during the game and play that again.

Not only that, but it had some of the most amazing art direction I have ever seen in games, especially for a PSone game. It easily rivals some current gen titles (I think it destroys ALOT of current gen titles in art direction TBH). It wasnt just the quality, it was the distinctiveness they managed to create. Im not neccessarily saying this was "better" than any other platformer, just that it was distinctive enough to create its own niche in a genre that was as flooded as shooters are this gen.

The music in Spyro was simply amazing. One of the things that made it better than the N64 platformers was the fact that N64 used Flash Cartridges while PS1 used CD rom. This allowed for MUCH better sound quality, and Insomniac sure as hell took advantage of this.

Another thing that made this game even better was the PSone's controller. It was PERFECT for platformers, whereas the monstrosity that was N64's controller rendered many games unplesurable to play. And for a genre that had JUST exploded, this was a major thing. At the time, 3D platformers were very hard to develop and make them work, let alone actually make them fun to play.

The enemies, the world, everything was done flawlessly. This game was seriously 2 generations ahead of its time in production values, and rivals some PS3 games in this reguard.

I seriously feel for any gamer who has never played Year of The Dragon before, or at the very least, Ripto's Rage. Almost to the point where I would paypal you money to buy a copy. Such a well done game.

/Nostalgia orgasm.

It doesn't hold up to SMG 1 or 2 in production values. It is simply too old. However, it is gorgeous. One of the few PS1 games that has aged well visually and doesn't look like ass.

Crash Bandicoot 2 > any Spyro game

And this is blog worthy :P

sorry to burst your bubble

Mario>Spyro

Spyro 3 is worse than Spyro 2 by a large margin. Its only redeeming quality over 2 is that it has a lot more content. (they're both awesome games that I love though) Even then, Spyro doesn't even touch Mario let alone the Galaxy games.

SMG slaughters Spyro: Year of the Dragon. Spyro can't hold a candle to Mario Galaxy in the area of creative and dynamiclevel design, which is what makes a platformer IMO.Spyro: YOTD doesn't even approach Mario 64, which the Galaxy games improved on quite a bit.

sorry to burst your bubble

Mario>Spyro

Dead-Memories

Standards had drastically changed by the time Spyro came out.

Spyro was a quality series, yes, but in no way, shape or form is it better than Galaxy 1 or 2.:?

It's a great series though.:) The third and second aged VERY well.

Also, BTW, SMG slaughters Spyro: Year of the Dragon. Spyro can't hold a candle to Mario Galaxy in the area of creative level design, which is what makes a platformer. Spyro: YOTD doesn't even approach Mario 64 IMO.

GreySeal9

SM64 is such an overated title. I would say spyro 2 was a better title than SM64. What about SM64 was so amazing looking back? I play SM64 today and its a piece of crap mess, you go back and play spyro and it still holds up especially since its not plagued with a horrible camera.

[QUOTE="Dead-Memories"]

sorry to burst your bubble

Mario>Spyro

Tombaman48umad

Standards had drastically changed by the time Spyro came out.

... 15 reviews v. over 50..? You really wanna go there?:P Spyro 3 was a good game on the PSOne no doubt, but the N64 also had games that were just as good.

I didnt say it was "better" than SMG, I said it held a candle to it in production values, and did more for the genre. And by that I mean no insult to SMG.

But as for Super Mario 64, can people who are saying SM64 "destroys" Spyro please chime in and tell me why exactly? I want to hear your opinions and your reasoning.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Also, BTW, SMG slaughters Spyro: Year of the Dragon. Spyro can't hold a candle to Mario Galaxy in the area of creative level design, which is what makes a platformer. Spyro: YOTD doesn't even approach Mario 64 IMO.

ActicEdge

SM64 is such an overated title. I would say spyro 2 was a better title than SM64. What about SM64 was so amazing looking back? I play SM64 today and its a piece of crap mess, you go back and play spyro and it still holds up especially since its not plagued with a horrible camera.

I agree with this. SM64 aged terribly. I enjoyed Spyro 2 (which was easily the best in the series and one of my fav PSOne classics) way more than SM64 and Banjo.:P (Yeah I went there DragonFly:lol: )

DK64 was pretty darn good too, but as a platformer from back in those days, Spyro 2 and even 3 still stand strong to this day, BUT aren't as good as Galaxy 1 or 2 (ha!:lol: ). Hell, even Sly Cooper is just as fun, (a little more gameplay wise, minus the character, which I'm not very fond of)

I didnt say it was "better" than SMG, I said it held a candle to it in production values, and did more for the genre. And by that I mean no insult to SMG.

But as for Super Mario 64, can people who are saying SM64 "destroys" Spyro please chime in and tell me why exactly? I want to hear your opinions and your reasoning.

Tombaman48umad

Your thread's title is misleading TC. Your OP and title go hand-in-hand.:P

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Also, BTW, SMG slaughters Spyro: Year of the Dragon. Spyro can't hold a candle to Mario Galaxy in the area of creative level design, which is what makes a platformer. Spyro: YOTD doesn't even approach Mario 64 IMO.

ActicEdge

SM64 is such an overated title. I would say spyro 2 was a better title than SM64. What about SM64 was so amazing looking back? I play SM64 today and its a piece of crap mess, you go back and play spyro and it still holds up especially since its not plagued with a horrible camera.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Also, BTW, SMG slaughters Spyro: Year of the Dragon. Spyro can't hold a candle to Mario Galaxy in the area of creative level design, which is what makes a platformer. Spyro: YOTD doesn't even approach Mario 64 IMO.

ActicEdge

SM64 is such an overated title. I would say spyro 2 was a better title than SM64. What about SM64 was so amazing looking back? I play SM64 today and its a piece of crap mess, you go back and play spyro and it still holds up especially since its not plagued with a horrible camera.

SM64 didn't age particularly well but its level design is so much more creative than any of the Spyro games. Yeah, the Spyro 2 and 3 do a good job of giving the player varied objectives (but so did Mario 64), but the actual levels? Nice to look at, but pretty flat as far as their actual designs are concerned.

I didnt say it was "better" than SMG, I said it held a candle to it in production values, and did more for the genre. And by that I mean no insult to SMG.

But as for Super Mario 64, can people who are saying SM64 "destroys" Spyro please chime in and tell me why exactly? I want to hear your opinions and your reasoning.

Tombaman48umad

It doesn't though. Its too damn old.

As for your question, read my last post.

And I fail to see how Spyro did more for the genre. Not that Galaxy is revolutionary, but I don't remember Spyro's design spawning a whole bunch of imitators.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Also, BTW, SMG slaughters Spyro: Year of the Dragon. Spyro can't hold a candle to Mario Galaxy in the area of creative level design, which is what makes a platformer. Spyro: YOTD doesn't even approach Mario 64 IMO.

sanim02

SM64 is such an overated title. I would say spyro 2 was a better title than SM64. What about SM64 was so amazing looking back? I play SM64 today and its a piece of crap mess, you go back and play spyro and it still holds up especially since its not plagued with a horrible camera.

I agree with this. SM64 aged terribly. I enjoyed Spyro 2 (which was easily the best in the series and one of my fav PSOne classics) way more than SM64 and Banjo.:P (Yeah I went there DragonFly:lol: )

DK64 was pretty darn good too, but as a platformer from back in those days, Spyro 2 and even 3 still stand strong to this day, BUT aren't as good as Galaxy 1 or 2 (ha!:lol: ). Hell, even Sly Cooper is just as fun, (a little more gameplay wise, minus the character, which I'm not very fond of)

[QUOTE="Dead-Memories"]

sorry to burst your bubble

Mario>Spyro

Tombaman48umad

Standards had drastically changed by the time Spyro came out.

[QUOTE="Tombaman48umad"]

I didnt say it was "better" than SMG, I said it held a candle to it in production values, and did more for the genre. And by that I mean no insult to SMG.

But as for Super Mario 64, can people who are saying SM64 "destroys" Spyro please chime in and tell me why exactly? I want to hear your opinions and your reasoning.

GreySeal9

It doesn't though. Its too damn old.

As for your question, read my last post.

And I fail to see how Spyro did more for the genre. Not that Galaxy is revolutionary, but I don't remember Spyro's design spawning a whole bunch of imitators.

[QUOTE="sanim02"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

SM64 is such an overated title. I would say spyro 2 was a better title than SM64. What about SM64 was so amazing looking back? I play SM64 today and its a piece of crap mess, you go back and play spyro and it still holds up especially since its not plagued with a horrible camera.

Tombaman48umad

I agree with this. SM64 aged terribly. I enjoyed Spyro 2 (which was easily the best in the series and one of my fav PSOne classics) way more than SM64 and Banjo.:P (Yeah I went there DragonFly:lol: )

DK64 was pretty darn good too, but as a platformer from back in those days, Spyro 2 and even 3 still stand strong to this day, BUT aren't as good as Galaxy 1 or 2 (ha!:lol: ). Hell, even Sly Cooper is just as fun, (a little more gameplay wise, minus the character, which I'm not very fond of)

Did you play 2 and 3? Because Sypro didn't even know these new abilities in the first game and was a nice way to advance further into the game. Not to mention, you get all your money back at the end of the game anyways. I could say the same thing about releasing the other characters, but you still get your money back at the end of the game.:P

I thought it was neat, since I played Ripto's Rage on my sisters PSOne before 3 was even out.:P 2 simply had this wow factor of "evolution", something 3 didn't really have, besides more varied objectives and extra characters to play as.

[QUOTE="Tombaman48umad"][QUOTE="sanim02"]

I agree with this. SM64 aged terribly. I enjoyed Spyro 2 (which was easily the best in the series and one of my fav PSOne classics) way more than SM64 and Banjo.:P (Yeah I went there DragonFly:lol: )

DK64 was pretty darn good too, but as a platformer from back in those days, Spyro 2 and even 3 still stand strong to this day, BUT aren't as good as Galaxy 1 or 2 (ha!:lol: ). Hell, even Sly Cooper is just as fun, (a little more gameplay wise, minus the character, which I'm not very fond of)

sanim02

Did you play 2 and 3? Because Sypro didn't even know these new abilities in the first game and was a nice way to advance further into the game. Not to mention, you get all your money back at the end of the game anyways. I could say the same thing about releasing the other characters, but you still get your money back at the end of the game.:P

I thought it was neat, since I played Ripto's Rage on my sisters PSOne before 3 was even out.:P 2 simply had this wow factor of "evolution", something 3 didn't really have, besides more varied objectives and extra characters to play as.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Tombaman48umad"]

I didnt say it was "better" than SMG, I said it held a candle to it in production values, and did more for the genre. And by that I mean no insult to SMG.

But as for Super Mario 64, can people who are saying SM64 "destroys" Spyro please chime in and tell me why exactly? I want to hear your opinions and your reasoning.

Tombaman48umad

It doesn't though. Its too damn old.

As for your question, read my last post.

And I fail to see how Spyro did more for the genre. Not that Galaxy is revolutionary, but I don't remember Spyro's design spawning a whole bunch of imitators.

Games that do a lot for the genre are always imitated in significant ways.

I doubt it would be of SMG's quality if released today. Imsomniac don't seem to think outside the box as far as level design is concerned and as good as they are, you can see that in the Spyro games. And their not exactly a the top of the their game this gen. I mean, their work this gen consists of some R&C rehashes and a soulless run-of-the-mill FPS series.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Tombaman48umad"]

I didnt say it was "better" than SMG, I said it held a candle to it in production values, and did more for the genre. And by that I mean no insult to SMG.

But as for Super Mario 64, can people who are saying SM64 "destroys" Spyro please chime in and tell me why exactly? I want to hear your opinions and your reasoning.

Tombaman48umad

It doesn't though. Its too damn old.

As for your question, read my last post.

And I fail to see how Spyro did more for the genre. Not that Galaxy is revolutionary, but I don't remember Spyro's design spawning a whole bunch of imitators.

But like Mario, how could they have evolved the series? Insomniac moved on because they didn't know how to "move on" with the Spyro series on their next gen platform (the PS2) + licensing issues. I'd link ya but I'm too sleepy.:P

R&C hasn't evolved much, but compare the things you can do in R&C to what you can do in Spyro. Charge, HeadBash, Flame (+ different elements) and Glide V. all those weapons, bigger scope with mini-games, platforming, blablabla.

Or maybe it's cuz Insomniac liked guns.:P I remember them saying something about how "Spyro couldn't hold a gun".:lol:

Spyro: Year of The Dragon was absolutely god-like. The game was better than any platformer of its time, including Super Mario 64 in every way. It even holds up to Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2 in terms of production values. (most who dissagree have not played the game)

First, Ill start by better graphics, but the main thing about it was how they managed to bring such a unique twist to the genre such as making the character be a 4 legged draggon who could fly and breathe fire at will! (when I was 6 and saw the commercials for the spyro games, I was so amused by it for some reason. The Idea of breathing fire at will was so amazing to me)

You see, Insomniac actually brought 2 distinctive/innovative core gameplay mechanics into the genre that were pretty much exclusive to the franchise (the flying mechanics, and the flame breath). This was a HUGE thing in a genre which was filled with cash-ins who were simply copying mario. These 2 features were HUGE and allowed Spyro to create a distinctive niche within the genre that only spyro could fill (without being labled a copycat). Sort of like God of War's blades of chaos.

Its extremely hard to mimic an experience like GoW's Blades of Chaos without coming dangerously close to the blatant "rip-off" status. You see this with Dantes Inferno, and C:LOS. The same went for Spyro at the time. It had everything SM64 had, but these 2 distinctive core gameplay mechanics really made it stand out and create its own niche that can only be filled by itself. This was also a good thing, because if you remember back to the PSone days, platformers back then were the equivalent to shooters this gen....the cash-in genre.

They even had multiple characters that each had distinctive gameplay st-yle that mixed the gameplay up, and plenty of minigames (the skateboarding level was EPIC!!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL9Q-MiukdkYou could do that as long as you wanted too! and you can go back any time during the game and play that again.

Not only that, but it had some of the most amazing art direction I have ever seen in games, especially for a PSone game. It easily rivals some current gen titles (I think it destroys ALOT of current gen titles in art direction TBH). It wasnt just the quality, it was the distinctiveness they managed to create. Im not neccessarily saying this was "better" than any other platformer, just that it was distinctive enough to create its own niche in a genre that was as flooded as shooters are this gen.

The music in Spyro was simply amazing. One of the things that made it better than the N64 platformers was the fact that N64 used Flash Cartridges while PS1 used CD rom. This allowed for MUCH better sound quality, and Insomniac sure as hell took advantage of this.

Another thing that made this game even better was the PSone's controller. It was PERFECT for platformers, whereas the monstrosity that was N64's controller rendered many games unplesurable to play. And for a genre that had JUST exploded, this was a major thing. At the time, 3D platformers were very hard to develop and make them work, let alone actually make them fun to play.

The enemies, the world, everything was done flawlessly. This game was seriously 2 generations ahead of its time in production values, and rivals some PS3 games in this reguard.

I seriously feel for any gamer who has never played Year of The Dragon before, or at the very least, Ripto's Rage. Almost to the point where I would paypal you money to buy a copy. Such a well done game.

/Nostalgia orgasm.

Tombaman48umad

1. This is a blog.

2. I love Spyro, particularly YotD, but it still doesn't hold a candle to SMG.

3. You don't need Paypal, as all three Spyro games from the PS1 era are on PSN.

Banjo Kazooie, Super Mario 64, and Donkey Kong 64 all crushed Spyro.

Spyro< Smg series< Crash Bandicoot

Like I said to Actic, what I think makes SM64 superior to Spyro is the levels. SM64's levels felt more memorable, more distinct and more tense. Spyro has a gorgeous world, but the play areas always very hub-like and I think Spyro has too much "collecting" in it. I feel that Ape Escape was a better PS1 3D platformer. The level design felt more creative.

Spyro< Smg series< Crash Bandicoot

0Hamburgher

And why do you feel that Spyro is superior to SMG?

You read it wrong plus it got messed up in the process

Spyro < SMG < Crash Bandicoot < SM64 < Tomb Raider (as a platformer) < Banjo Kazooie (nuts and bolts is exempt) < Ratchet and Clank < Rayman 2

After looking back at videos of Spyro 2 and SM64 (I haven't played either in a long time, so I thought I might refresh myself), I feel my opinion is right on the money. Spyro does seem more polished, but man, SM64's levels demolish the ones in Spyro. Some of those SMG4 levels are so tense and distinct. Their layouts are so different from eachother and while the platforming is not as emphasized as the 2D games, the levels emphasize precise jumping and what not.

Spyro's levels, on the other hand, as I said before, are very hub-like. They all kind of blend into each other and it just seems like actual platforming is not emphasized that much.

Plus, it seems like Spyro has "collection tasks" out the ass, which was typical of platformers back then. SM64 seems to have much less collection and seems to emphasize platforming much more.

You read it wrong plus it got messed up in the process

Spyro < SMG < Crash Bandicoot < SM64 < Tomb Raider (as a platformer) < Banjo Kazooie (nuts and bolts is exempt) < Ratchet and Clank < Rayman 2

0Hamburgher

Yeah, I did read it wrong. My bad. Though it boggles my mind how you can put Ratchet and Clank above SMG. SMG crushes any R&C game in the area of level design. R&C seems to be nothing more than a simplistic third person shooter with light platforming elements and pretty linear level design.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Also, BTW, SMG slaughters Spyro: Year of the Dragon. Spyro can't hold a candle to Mario Galaxy in the area of creative level design, which is what makes a platformer. Spyro: YOTD doesn't even approach Mario 64 IMO.

Tombaman48umad

SM64 is such an overated title. I would say spyro 2 was a better title than SM64. What about SM64 was so amazing looking back? I play SM64 today and its a piece of crap mess, you go back and play spyro and it still holds up especially since its not plagued with a horrible camera.

Oh, don't get me wrong, Mario as a whole is still a lot better designed than Spyro. Better games period but SM64 is the worst Mario game with age. It wasn't amazing back in the day and its just plain out dated now. Spyro had longer lasting more solid design and a better foundation (partly due to being out later) and it shows. Really though, music and gameplay wise spyro wasn't much of a step above the competition. The unison of the worlds however was just flatout better than anything else at the time imo however. They were great games but not perfect and 2 was a better game than 3. 3 regressed.

Love that game. By far the best platformer of it's time (yes, even better than SM64).

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Also, BTW, SMG slaughters Spyro: Year of the Dragon. Spyro can't hold a candle to Mario Galaxy in the area of creative level design, which is what makes a platformer. Spyro: YOTD doesn't even approach Mario 64 IMO.

GreySeal9

SM64 is such an overated title. I would say spyro 2 was a better title than SM64. What about SM64 was so amazing looking back? I play SM64 today and its a piece of crap mess, you go back and play spyro and it still holds up especially since its not plagued with a horrible camera.

SM64 didn't age particularly well but its level design is so much more creative than any of the Spyro games. Yeah, the Spyro 2 and 3 do a good job of giving the player varied objectives (but so did Mario 64), but the actual levels? Nice to look at, but pretty flat as far as their actual designs are concerned.

I don't find much great about SM64 in terms of levl design. A lot of SM64 (especially the later levels) exists for the sole sake of existing. In all the other mario games, obbstacles made sense in the context of the level, in SM64 often times certain aspects were sorely out of place, the game itself isn't that well designed from a standard today. It did a lot more with the vertical aspect of platformers (even today) but I don't find mych very memorable about it tbh. Spyro games were definitely more 1 planed in terms of transversing but I found the levels to be more organic, everything flowed a lot better and there often times was more to the game than simple forward progression. I agree on a technical level 64 is advanced but then again there is nothing close to Tree Top town for example in Mario 64.

Also, the spyro games were about covering planar distance hence why instead of a high jump you had a glide. Mario always covered vertical better than everyone else but I dare say no one had Spyro beat in the amount of sheer landscape and distance you would travel level by level.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Tombaman48umad"]

I didnt say it was "better" than SMG, I said it held a candle to it in production values, and did more for the genre. And by that I mean no insult to SMG.

But as for Super Mario 64, can people who are saying SM64 "destroys" Spyro please chime in and tell me why exactly? I want to hear your opinions and your reasoning.

Tombaman48umad

It doesn't though. Its too damn old.

As for your question, read my last post.

And I fail to see how Spyro did more for the genre. Not that Galaxy is revolutionary, but I don't remember Spyro's design spawning a whole bunch of imitators.

A lot of Spyro's mechanics are outdated now. Spyro did well at being a slightly more open platformer with organic worlds but as said its flat and that was what it best took advantage of. In this day and age spyro reborn wouldn't cut it without major gameplay revisions. I mean the point of glide was to cover plane distance and not vertical displacement.

Like I said to Actic, what I think makes SM64 superior to Spyro is the levels. SM64's levels felt more memorable, more distinct and more tense. Spyro has a gorgeous world, but the play areas always very hub-like and I think Spyro has too much "collecting" in it. I feel that Ape Escape was a better PS1 3D platformer. The level design felt more creative.

GreySeal9

Ape Escape was awesome though I think Spyro had it bested, it did have unique worlds as well. But I don't think that spyro playing out hub like was bad at all. It gave the levels a distinct feel to them that wasn't Mario like. Each world in spyro was far more "alive" than the average mario game was bar "Yoshi's Island" and the Galaxy games. Turtle Beach, the war between the breeze builders and the blobs that you witnessed and took place in, the badlands, fracture hill, magma cone, etc, to say 64 is more memorable seems out there to me. The straight platformering is probably better but everything else was rather "eh, mario in 3D, so what"

SMG slaughters Spyro: Year of the Dragon. Spyro can't hold a candle to Mario Galaxy in the area of creative and dynamiclevel design, which is what makes a platformer IMO.Spyro: YOTD doesn't even approach Mario 64, which the Galaxy games improved on quite a bit.

GreySeal9

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

SM64 is such an overated title. I would say spyro 2 was a better title than SM64. What about SM64 was so amazing looking back? I play SM64 today and its a piece of crap mess, you go back and play spyro and it still holds up especially since its not plagued with a horrible camera.

ActicEdge

SM64 didn't age particularly well but its level design is so much more creative than any of the Spyro games. Yeah, the Spyro 2 and 3 do a good job of giving the player varied objectives (but so did Mario 64), but the actual levels? Nice to look at, but pretty flat as far as their actual designs are concerned.

I don't find much great about SM64 in terms of levl design. A lot of SM64 (especially the later levels) exists for the sole sake of existing. In all the other mario games, obbstacles made sense in the context of the level, in SM64 often times certain aspects were sorely out of place, the game itself isn't that well designed from a standard today. It did a lot more with the vertical aspect of platformers (even today) but I don't find mych very memorable about it tbh. Spyro games were definitely more 1 planed in terms of transversing but I found the levels to be more organic, everything flowed a lot better and there often times was more to the game than simple forward progression. I agree on a technical level 64 is advanced but then again there is nothing close to Tree Top town for example in Mario 64.

Also, the spyro games were about covering planar distance hence why instead of a high jump you had a glide. Mario always covered vertical better than everyone else but I dare say no one had Spyro beat in the amount of sheer landscape and distance you would travel level by level.

I think you've outlined why I prefer SM64. The verticalness of the levels made them feel more dynamic and gave them a more at-the-edge-of-your-seat feeling. I will concede that SM64 did not have the sort of design perfection that the earlier Mario games did and there were elements that seemed out of place, but I believe that had a lot to do with the transition of 3D.

I guess the planar distance and the organic aspect in Spyro is what gives me that "hub" sort of feeling when playing and looking at Spyro levels.

I also remember Spyro having too much collection whereas Mario 64 didn't seem that way.

I totally agree that Spyro was more organic though and I will admit that its presentation was much more graceful. And it did give you pretty varied objectives.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

SMG slaughters Spyro: Year of the Dragon. Spyro can't hold a candle to Mario Galaxy in the area of creative and dynamiclevel design, which is what makes a platformer IMO.Spyro: YOTD doesn't even approach Mario 64, which the Galaxy games improved on quite a bit.

SilverChimera

I'll concede that Spyro controls better, but I just find its level designs to be rather dull. And I feel there's too much object collection.

[QUOTE="SilverChimera"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

SMG slaughters Spyro: Year of the Dragon. Spyro can't hold a candle to Mario Galaxy in the area of creative and dynamiclevel design, which is what makes a platformer IMO.Spyro: YOTD doesn't even approach Mario 64, which the Galaxy games improved on quite a bit.

GreySeal9

I'll concede that Spyro controls better, but I just find its level designs to be rather dull. And I feel there's too much object collection.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

SM64 didn't age particularly well but its level design is so much more creative than any of the Spyro games. Yeah, the Spyro 2 and 3 do a good job of giving the player varied objectives (but so did Mario 64), but the actual levels? Nice to look at, but pretty flat as far as their actual designs are concerned.

GreySeal9

I don't find much great about SM64 in terms of levl design. A lot of SM64 (especially the later levels) exists for the sole sake of existing. In all the other mario games, obbstacles made sense in the context of the level, in SM64 often times certain aspects were sorely out of place, the game itself isn't that well designed from a standard today. It did a lot more with the vertical aspect of platformers (even today) but I don't find mych very memorable about it tbh. Spyro games were definitely more 1 planed in terms of transversing but I found the levels to be more organic, everything flowed a lot better and there often times was more to the game than simple forward progression. I agree on a technical level 64 is advanced but then again there is nothing close to Tree Top town for example in Mario 64.

Also, the spyro games were about covering planar distance hence why instead of a high jump you had a glide. Mario always covered vertical better than everyone else but I dare say no one had Spyro beat in the amount of sheer landscape and distance you would travel level by level.

I think you've outlined why I prefer SM64. The verticalness of the levels made them feel more dynamic and gave them a more at-the-edge-of-your-seat feeling. I will concede that SM64 did not have the sort of design perfection that the earlier Mario games did and there were elements that seemed out of place, but I believe that had a lot to do with the transition of 3D.

I guess the planar distance and the organic aspect in Spyro is what gives me that "hub" sort of feeling when playing and looking at Spyro levels.

I also remember Spyro having too much collection whereas Mario 64 didn't seem that way.

I totally agree that Spyro was more organic though and I will admit that its presentation was much more graceful. And it did give you pretty varied objectives.

As a child I can fully admit that the part of Spyro 2 that pissed me off the most was getting to the last world and it saying you needed 40 orbs to get to Ripto and me only having 25. The even more annoying part was lack of memory card :(

I can definitely appreciate different perspective and taste from a fellow platforming fan, I love this genre because it can be approached from sooo many different ways and always provide a aspect or design never seen. Despite my harsh nature on 64 I still actually like the game (but the camera is a nightmare). the fact that a lot of the levels weren't coherent let the levels have a lot more pure platforming challenge that SPyro unfortunately lacked. Spyro and Crash were huge collectathons, I like collectathons but only when its optional (was in crash, spyro not so much). The downside to spyro's really great atmosphere and worlds were as you said, there generally wasn't anything that made your head spin, it was all great but I don't remember ever having on mind blowing section in any of the games.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

SMG slaughters Spyro: Year of the Dragon. Spyro can't hold a candle to Mario Galaxy in the area of creative and dynamiclevel design, which is what makes a platformer IMO.Spyro: YOTD doesn't even approach Mario 64, which the Galaxy games improved on quite a bit.

SilverChimera

Naw, Spyro aged far better but as games of concept vs games of excution 64 is the more ambitious title. Truth be told, 64 was let down by its hardware. If you play throwback Galaxy in SMG2, you realize a lot of the brilliance of SM64 is let down by the awfully weak tech for an ambitious game. But as games of today on there own I do think spyro is better but that's because spyro never attemtped to push boundaries.

Im more of a Crash fan, and the Spyro games never had great level design imo.gamefan67

Crash 1 was straight up mediocore (but it was certainly the hardest which I respect), Crash 2 was a huge improvement but still was missing something I felt, Crash 3 was amazing.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I don't find much great about SM64 in terms of levl design. A lot of SM64 (especially the later levels) exists for the sole sake of existing. In all the other mario games, obbstacles made sense in the context of the level, in SM64 often times certain aspects were sorely out of place, the game itself isn't that well designed from a standard today. It did a lot more with the vertical aspect of platformers (even today) but I don't find mych very memorable about it tbh. Spyro games were definitely more 1 planed in terms of transversing but I found the levels to be more organic, everything flowed a lot better and there often times was more to the game than simple forward progression. I agree on a technical level 64 is advanced but then again there is nothing close to Tree Top town for example in Mario 64.

Also, the spyro games were about covering planar distance hence why instead of a high jump you had a glide. Mario always covered vertical better than everyone else but I dare say no one had Spyro beat in the amount of sheer landscape and distance you would travel level by level.

ActicEdge

I think you've outlined why I prefer SM64. The verticalness of the levels made them feel more dynamic and gave them a more at-the-edge-of-your-seat feeling. I will concede that SM64 did not have the sort of design perfection that the earlier Mario games did and there were elements that seemed out of place, but I believe that had a lot to do with the transition of 3D.

I guess the planar distance and the organic aspect in Spyro is what gives me that "hub" sort of feeling when playing and looking at Spyro levels.

I also remember Spyro having too much collection whereas Mario 64 didn't seem that way.

I totally agree that Spyro was more organic though and I will admit that its presentation was much more graceful. And it did give you pretty varied objectives.

As a child I can fully admit that the part of Spyro 2 that pissed me off the most was getting to the last world and it saying you needed 40 orbs to get to Ripto and me only having 25. The even more annoying part was lack of memory card :(

I can definitely appreciate different perspective and taste from a fellow platforming fan, I love this genre because it can be approached from sooo many different ways and always provide a aspect or design never seen. Despite my harsh nature on 64 I still actually like the game (but the camera is a nightmare). the fact that a lot of the levels weren't coherent let the levels have a lot more pure platforming challenge that SPyro unfortunately lacked. Spyro and Crash were huge collectathons, I like collectathons but only when its optional (was in crash, spyro not so much). The downside to spyro's really great atmosphere and worlds were as you said, there generally wasn't anything that made your head spin, it was all great but I don't remember ever having on mind blowing section in any of the games.

I agree wholeheartedly, especially compared to say...the FPS genre.

Just as you like SM64 in spite of what you've said about it, I do like Spyro and think it was a very unique platformer in a absolutely sea of them and was Insomniac's crowning achievement. The way the whole came together was definitely better than the sum of its parts.