Crash Bandicoot is a better "3D Mario" than 5/7ths of the 3D Mario Games

Now, hear me out, don't go getting emotional like an old woman.

Look at the basic gameplay of the Crash trilogy. Linear "reach the end goal" gameplay, and even some 2d sections, along with a more 2d Mario-sequel system.

These games are far more in line with the gameplay of Super Mario Bros. 1, arguably 2, 3, World, Land, and Land 2. Super Mario 64 and most of its sequels are nothing like these classics, and play more like poor man's Zelda games that were created due to graphical limitations and exploring 3d game engines.

Why are 3D Land/World seen as poor entries due to "linearity" when said linearity MADE Mario. Many non-gamers look back and think of the gameplay of the SMB NES trilogy when they think of classic Mario, not "open world". Miyamoto even mentioned how those games failed to capture the same fandom and why 3D Land/World were needed to "bridge the gap".

Crash takes this gameplay and runs with it, whereas the actual Mario sequels ran away from it. Yet SMB 2 is CRITICIZED for being so markedly different!

Are old woman emotional? I take offense

Well, I never.. Hmmmph..

Crash Bandicoot.. Hmm-hmmmph!.

...agree to disagree. I do like Crash though.

Crash Bandicoot is trash compared to basically every 3D Mario; it's alright compared to similar PS1 era platformers though.

Old Women tend to be less emotional than Young Women.

I understand your point. It's not a genre I'm super into, but I might compare it to say Burnout 3: Takedown vs how most every racer has gone open world since. I like my linear stages!

Mario is usually great but fans of it usually overrate it at least some in my opinion. Crash is absolutely nothing to look down on in any way, they're really good games.

As someone who loves Crash 2 and 3.... No. Just no.

I don't quite understand your arguments. Because SM64, Sunshine, Galaxy 1+2 and Odyssey are 3d, they are inherently worse because people are less nostalgic for them, compared to the 2d NES and SNES games? Why are people who don't play video games the authority to say what a good video game is? 3D Land and especially 3D World were fantastic games, and so was SMB2. I've never seen someone call SMB2 a bad game, it's in fact often prefered to Lost Levels.

To give a clear counter point, the "New Super Mario Bros." series that closely captures the original NES games, is garbage in comparison to the 3d series.

This is the hottest, and most incorrect, of takes imo. I mean at the end of the day have your opinion but this is among the most baffling gaming opinions I've ever seen

I think crash 2+3 control better than say, Mario 64 when played today (definitely not galaxy or 3D Land/World, which are some the best controlling games ever) but other than that there's really no comparison. I'd say maybe crash 2 is better than sunshine but other than that, nah.

Also, idk where you're getting that people think 3D Land/World are lesser entries, I definitely heard that when they were first announced, but I don't think I've seen really any opinion about them that isn't absolutely glowing in retrospect. (I have no idea what the poor man's Zelda comment is getting at, too)

One of those threads where you can see who read the OP or not real easy. The whole point is linearity guys. He's comparing linear platformers (3D included) to ones like 64 based on their linear design to their levels.

Impossible. Crash wears jorts

I actually agree in that I do prefer the more linear approach of getting to the end of the level over the exploration based 3D ones and like at least Crash 2 more than SM64, but it's still apples and oranges. You could make the argument SM64 is a bad sequel, but good luck trying to convince anyone when the game was so impactful.

@jointron33: I like the Crash games more than the 3D mario games because I like the linear gameplay of them. But people like the Mario 64/Sunshines/Galaxies of the world because they moved away from being linear. That doesn't make them bad games (controller issues and dumb gimmicks make the first two bad games).

The Crash games had a lot of neat ideas in them. The "3D" linear nature, being able to have a level that goes from left to right, right to left, towards the screen and away from the screen all at the same time was clever. Collecting gems and 100% levels to unlock new gems on previous stages to unlock entire new sections of maps. Plenty of skill based platforming and timing. The other games started expanding on it, but the core was already good.

I would be interested in hearing people's opinions on which games control better if I knew they were playing both original games. Any comparison right after the Crash remaster just makes me think you're basing your conclusions off of playing it with a Ps4 controller.

N64 controller is garbage though--like almost all Nintendo controllers.

Next you lot will be telling me that Subway Surfers is the best game ever

Just like all those really good linear Sonic games.

I wouldn't say I consider the linearity of those early games to be at all a key part of what makes a Mario game, although I'm not sure what I WOULD actually put on that list that wouldn't be fairly nebulous and would apply equally well to many of the games.

I like Crash but those games can only dream of controlling as smoothly as Mario games.

And your first sentence is pretty stupid

What? Linearity vs. Nonlinearity. Bandicoots versus italian plumbers!?

Finding hidden rooms/paths and warp zones are some of the biggest reasons people love those early Mario games so much. Those are decidedly nonlinear things.

I like the linearity of the classic 2D Mario games and the Crash games. I like the 3D exploration and platforming of the 3D Mario games. 3D World/Land are not bad, people who say that are crazy. I like Crash quite a bit, some of my favorite original PlayStation games. To that point I would honestly take the worst Mario (platformer) 2D or 3D over any of the Crash games in a heartbeat.

I have played the original versions of these games at various points in the last few years, so I feel I can comment on this. If we it`s between Crash 1 and Mario 64 it`s fairly similar in my opinion. Both games control pretty terribly (by modern standards, they were both pioneers of 3D platforming in their day). Crash 2 and 3 control a lot better than Mario 64 in my opinion at least. Those games are still fun to play today and I don`t think Mario 64 is.

Crash has secrets too. That's not the same thing at all and it should be obvious the difference between Mario 64 and a game with levels.

Never heard anything bad said about these games tbh.

Lol

I have never beaten a Crash game, but I have played almost every 3D Mario game to 100% completion. Mario has always had a fun colorful world that I want to see everything in, but I have never enjoyed playing a single crash game to any level of completion.

Handling has always been the problem for Crash in my opinion. I just don't have any fun playing the games. So I disagree completely.

If someone were to present me with a copy of Crash 2 and a copy of Super Mario 64 and told me that I had to pick one to stick to for life and never play the other again, I'd pick Crash 2 time and time again. Partly because of nostalgia, but also because I just think it's aged better.

That said, the respect needs to go far more towards Super Mario 64. Nintendo figured out how to make 3D games actually fucking work when literally everyone else was still trying to make those games perform well enough to be enjoyable.

Now, with that bit out of the way - I've never been a big fan of Mario. Sunshine is probably my favorite Mario game and I don't even return to it regularly. I had Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World on SNES as a kid and still gravitated towards the Donkey Kong Country games, and always leaned towards the Crash games over the Spyro ones (later on, Jak and Daxter, if you were going to ask). Super Mario 3D Land is probably my second favorite Mario game and I remember being a little bummed when people were praising that game for its marriage of 2D and 3D level design when Crash 2 had done the same thing so damn well fifteen years or so before the 3DS came out.

People who say that the Crash games don't feel right sound nuts to me, unless they are judging the whole series on the first one. The PS1 versions of Crash 2 and 3 feel so goddamn good to play.

Jointron33 go on Chapo The next Bombcast/UPF Call in Show.

I get the argument you're making, I just don't think it's really an argument that needed to be made. It sort of makes no sense.

Mario isn't good because it's linear. Mario is good because it's fucking Mario. They make good Mario games. Mario 64 is admittedly pretty light on actual platforming, but as a game it's a masterpiece. Crash replicated the 2D Mario game template into 3D graphics way better than Mario 64 did, true, but Mario 64 was way better regarded because it wasn't just replicating the old gameplay with better graphics. It was doing more. The 3D Land games are essentially doing what Crash did years ago. And the Galaxy games are somewhere in between.

I like Crash. But I think one of the reasons all of those games are better than all of the Crash games is personality. Mario has unique and identifiable environments, enemies, music, items and characters. The Crash character is just a less interesting Sonic the Hedgehog with levels and enemies that never feel uniquely Crash. You could throw any generic character in any random jungle level and it doesn't feel out of place, the way putting Sonic in the Mushroom Kingdom among Toads and goombas and fire flowers would.


In closing, Mario Sunshine is a great game you fucking heathens.

You lost me with the weird unnecessary sexism at the beginning. Nice hot take though, I guess?

Multiple paths to get to the end of the game is the definition of nonlinear. What's the "obvious difference"?

Hmm interesting point. Personally I've never really liked Crash games and do like old school Mario as well as 64 Galaxy and Sunshine. So I would not tend to agree but I do see your point of it being more "faithful". The Crash games always felt restrictive to me and while they did offer a lot of variety I found myself not thinking much of them after beating them. This was as a kid growing up with Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time though so my view is probably skewed.

@oldenglishc: I think the difference is that by warping you're still going down the same linear path of levels, just skipping a few points along the way.

Non-linear, at least to me, means that I can do other quests and still end up at the same point, or do quests in a different order, or have a totally different outcome.

I played the Crash games growing up enough that playing even a 2D Mario game feels slippery and floaty. I never feel truly "in control" in a Mario game because of it. I wonder how much of this is just preference because of what people are used to. It's not like I hate Mario games because they don't control exactly the same as Crash; they're still fun. But I'll never have as much fun with them as a Crash game.

Between that and Mario 64? You don't know how a hub world is different?

The Crash vs Mario discussion never made much sense to me (apart from being released in the same year) . Games like Spyro, Banjo, Donkey Kong 64, Gex, Croc , Earthworm Jim 3d are more of the sandbox platforming you would see in Mario 64.

I always felt like Crash mixed platforming with Contra's perspective changes. Some levels you platform forwards, some are 2,5D segments. Sometimes you have to platform towards the camera. Eventhough some of that stuff didn't always work out, it was a very interesting way of making a platformer and gave Crash it's own identity to me.

If you come to platformers to beat challenging levels, i think Crash is a better game. If you're more in it to immerse yourself in a colorful world, Mario 64 is better .

I speak for Crash 2 only, as 1 and 3 never did it for me.

Crash 2 feels like quasi-3D Super Mario World to me. Tight gameplay, tons of secrets, and linear level design. Once Mario 3D Land came out, it felt pretty similar to Crash to me, too. It was less about exploration and more about overcoming a series of obstacles stacked in a row.

The full 3D Mario games are great but feel like a completely separate beast. Crash 2 kind of felt like the logical next step after Mario World perfected 2D Mario.

@odinsmana: I can believe the analogue movement being better in Crash., but Mario 64 gives you more game play tools (different jumps etc.). At least that's how I remember it, I only ever played the demos for Crash 2 & 3 and was too young to ever beat Crash 1.

This thread is an interesting social experiment to see who reads actually reads the content of the OP, or who just reads the thread title.

@hippie_genocide: Not sure it matters because I read the OP and it makes no sense to me. At best it's an unnecessary argument based on false premises that fails to make any actual point, let alone the point stated in the thread title.

Also, I'm extra confused about the idea of 3D Mario games being a 'poor man's Zelda' because what does that even mean? They're completely different!

How about Ratchet & Clank are better platformers then every Crash game.

@imhungry: What I gathered is that he feels the 3D Marios diverged too far from what makes Mario, Mario, and are therefore "bad" Mario games. I'm not saying it's a good point or that I necessarily agree with it, but it's interesting how few don't even address that. As far as the Zelda thing, I don't remember Sunshine all that well, but don't you upgrade your FLUDD at certain points that allow you do access areas that were previously inaccessible? I could've just made that up. It's entirely possible.

You lost any credibility or chance of me paying attention when your first sentence was that old woman "joke".

This was my reaction too. I had no idea how many ardent Crash fans there really were until these remasters were announced.

Crash plays like ass. And that's coming from someone who played those games to death as a child. Important point, as a child.

They added more tool in both like the slide jump that still feels great to use. Mario 64 has a good amount of verbs you can use, but (in my opinion) they are pretty stiff and clunky like the rest of the controls. I do also think Crash 2 and 3 control a lot better then Mario 64 and Crash 1 even with the d-pad. It`s just a lot more responsive and feels better. Which makes sense since they were able to iterate on the foundation they had built. I am sure a Mario 64 2 would have controlled a lot more smoothly as well.

I would probably agree that Mario 64 controls better than Crash 1 for most people. The reason I put the somewhat on par in my personal opinion is that I don`t care for Marios momentum, but I know a lot people like that, so for a lot of people Mario 64 probably controls better.

I think OP argues it poorly, but I think there something interesting about the argument that Crash is a more direct 3D adaptation of the 2D mario games than Mario 64, Galaxy etc. since those games kinda went in a different direction. That doesen`t make the Crash games inherently better (or worse) than the 3D Mario games. Just different.

I've only played the DS version of Mario 64 and no other Mario since World but I really like crash on PS1 back in the day. I had 1 and 3.

I mean, I love the Crash trilogy, but even before this thread I was thinking to myself 'this is good, but it's still nowhere near Mario levels of good.'

Honestly though, I don't even think it would be in my top 5 3d platformers. I'd say Mario first, Banjo, Jak and Daxter (the first one anyways), Ratchet and Clank, and Sly Cooper are all better franchises than Crash. Which, again, is not to say I don't like the games. I do, quite a bit.

The frustration factor is very high though. I was constantly missing jumps because they were very difficult to judge exactly how far away they were. Same with enemies. I run into enemies / obstacles all the time because I can't always tell how far away from it I am. I've never had that problem in other games nearly as much as I do in Crash. I'm almost finished with all 3 games now, and I still run into this problem pretty frequently. Plus sometimes the games are just plain unfair.

So they are good games, but not nearly in the same league as Mario. Imo.