What IS the appeal of 3D platformers:?

[Igor-Rowan]

Yahtzee finally said what I've been thinking for a while, how being 3D does not exactly enhance platforming. Ever since I played Mario 3D Land and the Jak & Daxter trilogy, I started doubting the appeal of the genre at all, since Jak & Daxter went from platforming to action-adventure as the platformers were in decline and recently Nintendo released this image to cast even more of a doubt:

The sales of 64 and Sunshine compared to the New Super Mario Bros. series don't lie, I am not alone on that. The question is why?

Spoiler: Here's a few theories

Is that because on a 3D plane, collecting stuff by jumping around seems... weird/trivial? In 2D there is suspension of disbelief as their world lacks a perspective, but in 3D platforming is seen as "casual", since action-adventure games have developed combat and are story-heavy, collecting things and jumping on stuff is not gonna cut it.

I also think that in 2D platforming the fixed perspective allow people to adapt to the controls (since they usually appeal to casuals) and pixelart or hand-drawn styles are visually more appealing than 2.5D.

And finally a visit to the timeline. More or less stared in the PS1/N64 era where they were seen as novelty with potential, then the PS2/Xbox era came and games like GTA and Driver spread around the idea of 3D spaces being packed with content to create worlds (this would later evolve into nowadays' sanboxes) so the idea was starting to fizzle out.

It would hit rock bottom when the Crash, Spyro, Ty, among others stagnated on that time, then Sonic 06 for the next generation that would be the end of the genre for the mainstream. Even if Mario Galaxy hit critical acclaim, the sales of that, compared to the sales of New Super Mario Bros. Wii would signal to Nintendo and others that 2D was back and 3D was out, further emphasized when Banjo-Kazooie developers made a world so big that platforming around would kill the pacing, so they had to fill in with something, hence why Nuts and Bolts is the way it is.

I honestly wouldn't count on 3D platforming being back yet, A Hat in Time and Mario Odyssey have yet to show their merits and if they don't knock it out of the park, the genre just migth go back to sleep. I am not counting on Psychonauts 2, because people play Psychonauts not because of the platforming, but for the characters and humor. And I also wouldn't count Sonic Forces, because there will be voice acting and they keep introducing characters, so I wouldn't count on that game doing this genre any favors.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

The appeal is that its fun and challeging in a 3D plane and sometimes it adds immesion I mean I like seeing ahead of where I am platforming.

I get bored playing a Side Scrolling Mario game after awhile, when I play a 3D Mario game I get INTO it.

And 3D also adds an element of exploration and non linearity to it.

I mean look at the level design of Banjo Kazooie. The feel of adventure is there when I search every nook and crany.

 

[shrekfan246]

being 3D does not exactly enhance platforming.

Does being 3D enhance an RPG? An action game? Puzzle games? Adventure games?

Like... what?

Counterpoint: Perhaps you're just not personally a fan of 3D platformers.

 

[Natemans]

Yahtzee finally said what I've been thinking for a while, how being 3D does not exactly enhance platforming. Ever since I played Mario 3D Land and the Jak & Daxter trilogy, I started doubting the appeal of the genre at all, since Jak & Daxter went from platforming to action-adventure as the platformers were in decline and recently Nintendo released this image to cast even more of a doubt:

The sales of 64 and Sunshine compared to the New Super Mario Bros. series don't lie, I am not alone on that. The question is why?

Spoiler: Here's a few theories

Is that because on a 3D plane, collecting stuff by jumping around seems... weird/trivial? In 2D there is suspension of disbelief as their world lacks a perspective, but in 3D platforming is seen as "casual", since action-adventure games have developed combat and are story-heavy, collecting things and jumping on stuff is not gonna cut it.

I also think that in 2D platforming the fixed perspective allow people to adapt to the controls (since they usually appeal to casuals) and pixelart or hand-drawn styles are visually more appealing than 2.5D.

And finally a visit to the timeline. More or less stared in the PS1/N64 era where they were seen as novelty with potential, then the PS2/Xbox era came and games like GTA and Driver spread around the idea of 3D spaces being packed with content to create worlds (this would later evolve into nowadays' sanboxes) so the idea was starting to fizzle out.

It would hit rock bottom when the Crash, Spyro, Ty, among others stagnated on that time, then Sonic 06 for the next generation that would be the end of the genre for the mainstream. Even if Mario Galaxy hit critical acclaim, the sales of that, compared to the sales of New Super Mario Bros. Wii would signal to Nintendo and others that 2D was back and 3D was out, further emphasized when Banjo-Kazooie developers made a world so big that platforming around would kill the pacing, so they had to fill in with something, hence why Nuts and Bolts is the way it is.

I honestly wouldn't count on 3D platforming being back yet, A Hat in Time and Mario Odyssey have yet to show their merits and if they don't knock it out of the park, the genre just migth go back to sleep. I am not counting on Psychonauts 2, because people play Psychonauts not because of the platforming, but for the characters and humor. And I also wouldn't count Sonic Forces, because there will be voice acting and they keep introducing characters, so I wouldn't count on that game doing this genre any favors.

Which is odd since I love platformers. You can create good platformers based on the world you build, the story and characters. That's why I love the Jak and Daxter trilogy as one of my favorites. Yes, it went to shooters, but it still added great atmosphere with solid writing and characters. Same with Ratchet and Clank as that series is well-known for its creative weapons, but the one thing that was remembered is its use on satire towards social and economical commentary, especially on consumerism. Though it is sad and ironic that the series became what it was satirizing. :/

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I grew up on ps1 Crash Banticoot games, those have a special part in my heart. As I grew older I shifted into a more story and hyper complicated action type of games so their simple charm now fails to hold my interest. The last one I liked and finished was Jak 2, which was also made by the same studio, so I guess I just like their games.


The last platformer I played was Mario Galaxy...and I just did not like it at all. I remember it getting 11/10 reviews from sites back then and it was just so boring. I could not play it for more than 40 minutes or so a sitting and I can put in something like 12 hours in a row if a game is as good as something like Persona 5.

 

[Zhukov]

Standards were lower back then. Most gamers were kids who would be delighted with just about anything.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I dunno, what's the appeal of 100 hour JRPGs and Seasonal Sports games?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I sorta agree, 3D platformers for the most part are/were too simple. Watching footage of Yooka-Laylee just seemed really boring running around collecting stuff with what didn't seem like any challenge. With that said, you can make great 3D platformers like Prince of Persia: Sands of Time; the level design is great with a lot of challenging traps to avoid as well. I think the key to any really good platformer is having some puzzle aspect to the platforming itself, trying to figure how to get somewhere instead of just the challenge of making jumps (which 3D lends itself far better to than 2D). I also feel the original Sly Cooper was an amazing game, every level had a distinct feel to it, you never felt like you were doing the same thing over and over again. Sly Cooper even implemented old-school mechanics like one hit and your dead (or couple if you picked up items) that worked marvelously with the game. Lastly, Mirror's Edge has some of the best core gameplay over the last 2 generations. Both games in the series have their issues but you can't get that experience from any other game.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Maybe you're just not into it man. It happens.

 

[DeliveryGodNoah_v1legacy]

I play a good platformer now and again, 3D or otherwise.

A good 3D platformer doesn't just consist of platforming and collecting generally, and if it is primarily that, it needs to make the challenge to collect those items not immedietely obvious so the player is encouraged to explore and look around.

Can't say I'd ever call any 3D platformer today "GOTY" material like some people are screaming on the internet for Yooka Laylee. That game lacks a lot of what seemed to make Banjo-Kazooie enjoyable. Even with Banjo-Kazooie being aimed at kids, it made sure not to make their characters too bubbly and overly ecstatic to be in the game. The characters in Yooka Laylee...they just...have a constant smile. It makes the game feel like it's trying too hard to "wonderous and full of adventure".

 

[sXeth]

being 3D does not exactly enhance platforming.

Does being 3D enhance an RPG? An action game? Puzzle games? Adventure games?

Like... what?

Counterpoint: Perhaps you're just not personally a fan of 3D platformers.

What is an "Adventure" game anyhow, lol.

RPG's generally benefit from a sense of immersion. We exist in 3d so you can more easily develop a rapport with a world that seems 3d. I guess you could say that for any game, but RPGs are a genre based heavily on story work.

Puzzles obviously can work with more potential in 3d.

Action is probably 50/50. You have more potential workspace to use, but also problems with cameras, movement, hitboxes, etc to consider.

 

[Igor-Rowan]

snip

But why is that? Why does being side-scroller make it somehow inferior to something in a 3D plane? Shadow Complex and Inside show that you can do story in a 2D environment and the ending of Yoshi's Island is one of the biggest moments of the Mario franchise. I know people have preferences, but for the longest time 3D is considered above 2D for whatever reason.

snip

That's the shift I was talking about, when does a game stops being a platformer and starts being an action-adventure, if there's more than jumping around and simple combat, can it still be considered a platformer?

Does being 3D enhance an RPG? An action game? Puzzle games? Adventure games?

With puzzles, it can be incorporated in the gameplay some things such as perspective and depth, for the others there is something called cinematics, and cinematics on 3D platformers highlight how silly it looks jumping around in a mostly 3D space.

On the contrary, I love 3D platformers, my doubt is not whether or not they're good, but rather why are they automatically above 2D platformers in terms of challenge, depth and overall flair. I just don't think there's gonna be a "big return" for them that many people are so boldly claiming with Crash N-sane, Sonic Forces and Mario Odyssey on the horizon.

 

[shrekfan246]

Does being 3D enhance an RPG? An action game? Puzzle games? Adventure games?

With puzzles, it can be incorporated in the gameplay some things such as perspective and depth, for the others there is something called cinematics, and cinematics on 3D platformers highlight how silly it looks jumping around in a mostly 3D space.

Well I think you've just answered part of your own question, because many 3D platformers incorporate puzzles as a central part of their gameplay loops. Not only that, but as mentioned good ones will generally utilize the 3D space to emphasize exploration in a way that 2D platformers really can't. I'm not sure what relevance cinematics have at all, given that they're usually the smallest part of a platformer, the player usually controls the character while jumping around, and the fact that real people exist and jump around in mostly 3D space. (Unless you're just talking about the graphics themselves, in which case... that's again kinda just a subjective judgment call. If you think it looks silly, I'm gonna have to agree to disagree with you because I just think it looks like it's there. No more silly to me than Mario being able to jump like he's a moon man in the 2D games.)

On the contrary, I love 3D platformers, my doubt is not whether or not they're good, but rather why are they automatically above 2D platformers in terms of challenge, depth and overall flair. I just don't think there's gonna be a "big return" for them that many people are so boldly claiming with Crash N-sane, Sonic Forces and Mario Odyssey on the horizon.

They're not? They're simply another avenue for providing an experience to the player. I'd be very curious where there's apparently this majority contingent of people singing the praises of 3D platformers being better than 2D by design. The only reason they're even getting any attention right now is because as a genre, 3D platforming has basically been dead since ~2002, so the prospect of having a return with multiple games that aren't Sonic or Mario is exciting.

being 3D does not exactly enhance platforming.

Does being 3D enhance an RPG? An action game? Puzzle games? Adventure games?

Like... what?

Counterpoint: Perhaps you're just not personally a fan of 3D platformers.

What is an "Adventure" game anyhow, lol.

Generally speaking I lean toward the Monkey Island/Longest Journey/The Walking Dead games, but I'd also even include things like Amnesia: The Dark Descent if I'm honest.

RPG's generally benefit from a sense of immersion. We exist in 3d so you can more easily develop a rapport with a world that seems 3d. I guess you could say that for any game, but RPGs are a genre based heavily on story work.

Consider, is there really a significant difference between Final Fantasy VI and VII (or X, depending on how you want to define a 3D game) in how immersive the game world is simply because of the graphics?

Puzzles obviously can work with more potential in 3d.

Action is probably 50/50. You have more potential workspace to use, but also problems with cameras, movement, hitboxes, etc to consider.

And this is precisely my point. 3D platformers can do more, they can make more unique use of their game worlds to provide interesting challenges to the player because... you're not confined to a single plane of movement. That'll naturally come with some downsides and it'll be more difficult to use it, but, like, I'm not going to say that action games are inferior in 3D because Superman 64 and Aquaman: Battle for Atlantis exist.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

No appeal at all for me, and i've been saying it ever since Mario 64 came out.

3-D was a trend which everyone jumped on back in the day, some genres have crossed over well, others not so much. And platforming games have suffered for the 3-D transition.

I still much prefer the 2-D platform games to the 3-D ones.

 

[sXeth]

being 3D does not exactly enhance platforming.

Does being 3D enhance an RPG? An action game? Puzzle games? Adventure games?

Like... what?

Counterpoint: Perhaps you're just not personally a fan of 3D platformers.

What is an "Adventure" game anyhow, lol.

Generally speaking I lean toward the Monkey Island/Longest Journey/The Walking Dead games, but I'd also even include things like Amnesia: The Dark Descent if I'm honest.

Oh right, those. Except for Amnesia, I've always kind of considered those puzzle games.

RPG's generally benefit from a sense of immersion. We exist in 3d so you can more easily develop a rapport with a world that seems 3d. I guess you could say that for any game, but RPGs are a genre based heavily on story work.

Consider, is there really a significant difference between Final Fantasy VI and VII (or X, depending on how you want to define a 3D game) in how immersive the game world is simply because of the graphics?

Well, those specific examples, my issues with immersion in later FF's have a long list before the 3d part comes up. Though the "3D" FF's outside of cutscenes tend to have some of the worst cinematrography in major gaming. Awkward fixed angles constantly.

RPGs (mostly) thrive on fantastical settings and elaborate detail. You can accomplish that without fancy graphics, but being able to do a full 360 view and see these fantastic vistas and unearthly things gives much more of a wow factor. Oil painting backdrops or hand drawn sprites can do a lot, but being able to explore and climb and look about does lend a certain quality to it.

(You can also do this horribly wrong too. For being a space fantasy shoved across multiple alien civilizations and worlds, Mass Effect sure loved to stick you in samey looking corridors and barren featureless planets a lot)

 

[Nazulu]

I love the 3rd person myself because I feel I get the best view of the character themselves and more view in general. When done right it feels the most immersive of all to me, which unfortunately Yooka-Dooka didn't execute too well it seems.

What I really don't understand is why so many people have a problem with 3rd person and 1st person platforming. I've never found them difficult to adapt to. Sure the camera can sometimes be a pain, but you do adapt to that too, and it's a skill that crosses over to every 3rd person game.

Also, Zhukov thinking he has standards is cute ^^

 

[sageoftruth]

I think exploration is a big part of the appeal. 2D platformers can be big have plenty to explore, but when you have three dimensions to move in, you need to apply more thought to where you're going. As others have said already, platforming tends to be a form of puzzle, with more execution required than a pure puzzle game. If a game has you panning around the area thinking, "Ok, where am I, where is my goal, and how do I get from where I am to where the goal is based on the terrain ahead of me?" that can be a part of the fun that 2D platformers usually can't offer as much.

At best, 2D platformers will have you frequently opening a menu to check your map, if it's one of those games, but 3D ones can really force you to get to know the layout of an area, which is a huge plus for some players.

 

[sageoftruth]

I love the 3rd person myself because I feel I get the best view of the character themselves and more view in general. When done right it feels the most immersive of all to me, which unfortunately Yooka-Dooka didn't execute too well it seems.

What I really don't understand is why so many people have a problem with 3rd person and 1st person platforming. I've never found them difficult to adapt to. Sure the camera can sometimes be a pain, but you do adapt to that too, and it's a skill that crosses over to every 3rd person game.

Also, Zhukov thinking he has standards is cute ^^

It's definitely improved over time. Back when characters didn't cast shadows beneath them, platforming was very difficult in 3rd person. You'd jump and then look on in surprise as your character didn't stop falling when his feet lined up with the platform ahead. Thankfully, shadows being used as an aid has become a pretty common practice now.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I dunno, what's the appeal of 100 hour JRPGs and Seasonal Sports games?

As far as the Jrpgs go, I can explain.


When you are entrenched in a 100+ hour long quest, all the efforts you've spent and all the events that have transpired up to that point have a cumulative emotional and entertainment-related impact (as long as you pay attention and actually comprehend what is ongoing with the various plot points and sub stories and all the moving gears) so by the time the game nears the finish you are witnessing the end of an epic that is unlike anything else gaming has to offer. That triumphant feeling of finally accomplishing the goal you set out to accomplish and the montage of all of your glories and tears in the ending is something that is not found elsewhere. The impact is so strong that I always end up watching the credits roll in a lull of joy, listening to the ending song and reminiscing. You can't get that from a 12 hour game that can be finished in a single weekend.