I just don't see the appeal. They're not bad games but all I can think when I've tried to play them is "that's it?" This was at one time seriously considered an iconic platformer franchise? At least spyro was something genuinely fresh for the genre, this is just barebones 2D platformer design but in a 3D space.
>>12620180the mistake you make is assuming that cultural recognition is going to come down to objective gameplay particulars. crash is famous because loony tunes with some 90s extreme edge became a meme and naughtydog had enough polish for it to be palatable. .
Would you suck on a Crashbandi's coot?
As I got older I appreciate Crash even more>world map is absolute kino, feels like exploring the world>controls are smooth and intuitive>super-tight level design and challenge>gorgeous artstyle and memorable soundtrack>funny animations like straight from a cartoon>100%ing it is actually hard and satisfying >tons of variety, levels rarely feel the same and constantly keep you on your toesIt puts Mario 64 to fucking shame
>>12620180>I just don't see the appeal.Dunno maybe the fact that they are super intense action games with extremely tight gameplay (especially 2) ,challenging and funs levels, amazing presentation...Crash 2 is one of the best 3D platformer ever made
>>12620206>>12620225when was the last time you guys actually played these games? the platforming is worse than most SNES games.
>>12620180Never played 1, or 2. But I think 3 is pretty great. Probably one of the best looking games every released.
>>12620180Crash was daring enough to have steady challenge and flow in a 3D platformer, the only game franchise that didn't dull the edges just because it's 3D.
>>12620180Honestly Spyro is similar regardless, neither are much special but are remembered because people played them when they were young and don't realize just how unremarkable the games are looking back at them.
>>12620227I played Crash 2 earlier this yearIt feel so good to play
>>12620227NTA, played them as a kid but never beat them, 100%ed the N.Sane Trilogy (really enjoyed it) a few years back, and just this last year I 100%'ed the PS1 versions, they were a ton of fun. I didn't actually plan on going for 100% but was just enjoying the games so much I decided to go for it (got burned out on the time trials of Crash 3 though)I like both the originals and NST for different reasons. Crash is like my exact type of platforming game that I love, I wish we got more linear hazard-based platformers instead of these shitty open world baby games where you just collect a bunch of bullshit (no hate to Banjo though)
>>12620191This. Crash is basically Mario for brown kids who were allowed to own one non-fifa game
>>12620242>>12620323not normally my thing but I played through Crash 1 recently and enjoyed it. I like hard arcade games and it was way more enjoyable to me than Spyro or collectathons. One of the better mascot platformers imo
Excuse me could you not console war in this thread
>>12620384This
I like 'em. I beat all three a couple times. They don't have much staying power after being beat a few times, the non-speedrun skill cap is not that high.It's just good honest platforming + heaps of polish + great aesthetic, sound design, graphic design. It's a technical marvel they managed to get something that looked that good on the PS1, it graphically shits on pretty much everything else in the same era.Crash 2 has the best vibe by far. Crash 3 was more ambitious and spread out but Crash 2 felt like the most cohesive and tightly put together game.
>>12620180I just beat the trilogy last week.I thought 1 was way too hard and it introduced nothing new to the table except for being "kinda" 3D. Even though a lot of levels were mostly in 2D and in 99% of the cases pressing up/down (forward/back) only served the purpose of pissing you off when you click it by mistake and fall off the platform. There were no engaging mechanics, i can think of so many 2D platformers from before 1996 that were more elaborate; and the difficulty was terrible, it felt like walking on a very tight rope which did not allow for any fun expression (basically making it into somewhat of a rhythm game). 2 and 3 solved most of my problems with 1 and even the good parts were now better (which was mostly the presentation, animations etc) but on the other hand they were way too easy for a casual non-100% playthrough, and the stage variety was kind of weird. Even though I consider 2 and 3 vastly superior, the lack of difficulty made me kinda miss crash 1 even if it was bullshit
>>12623110the challenge of getting a level's crates so greatly outstrips any kind of conventional difficulty a non limited continue platformer is going to throw at you that 2 and 3 being too easy is not that huge of a deal imo. the real game is getting the crates.
>>12623110>I thought 1 was way too hard and it introduced nothing new to the table except for being "kinda" 3D. Even though a lot of levels were mostly in 2D and in 99% of the cases pressing up/down (forward/back) only served the purpose of pissing you off when you click it by mistake and fall off the platform. There were no engaging mechanics, i can think of so many 2D platformers from before 1996 that were more elaborateYou say that but there is genuinely nothing at all like Crash except maybe DKC and that's fully 2D. Crash blows away dogshit like Ape Escape, Rayman, Gex, Mario 64, Klonoa,
Getting the crates isn't fun.
What happened to people merely seeking fun in video games instead of transcendental experiences that change the way they see life? video games aren't for that.
>>12623519I disagree, Crash is one of the only platformers that doesn't feel like a massive chore to 100%. Some of the off-screen crates are bullshit though
>>12620384Kek this
